Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Newsprint

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade what allocation of paper has been made available to the publishers of the journal "Freedom First."

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): No paper has been specifically licensed for "Freedom First," and any paper used has presumably been obtained from printers' or merchants' stocks for the resale of which no licence is necessary.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the fact that this paper is in the unique position of being financed and sponsored by the most disreputable elements in both the commercial and political life of the country, could the Minister use the means at his disposal to find us a copy and put it in the Library?

Mr. Wilson: I am not prepared to use the paper control for the purpose of censorship, even when the hon. Gentleman asks for it. I am quite sure that he is capable of getting his own copies and reading them for himself.

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade how the current price charged for newsprint in Britain compares with the world price; and what is the reason for the difference.

Mr. H. Wilson: The price at which newsprint is sold is not standard throughout the world, but depends upon market conditions and contract terms. It depends upon the cost of the raw materials and is also affected by the level of output

which in this country is still only 50 per cent. of pre-war. In the circumstances, it is encouraging to note that our prices compare favourably with those of the Scandinavian producers, though they are above those at which paper can be bought on long term contracts in Canada.

Mr. Hurd: Is it not a fact that the British Government are paying the Finns £40 a ton for newsprint which they are willing to sell to America for £28 a ton? When will the President of the Board of Trade allow our own mills to renew their direct contacts with the producers of pulp in Scandinavia?

Mr. Wilson: I should want notice of the question, in relation to Finland in particular. It is true that many of the Scandinavian countries are selling in dollars at a lower price than to non-dollar countries because of their need for dollars.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what profits the Government are making out of newsprint?

Mr. Wilson: Not without notice.

Mr. Gammans: Is this a long-term bulk buying contract and, if so, how long has it to run?

Mr. Wilson: Is what a long-term bulk buying contract?

Mr. Gammans: Are the Government buying newsprint on a series of long-term bulk buying contracts and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman say how much longer they have to run, so that we can take advantage of the lower prices prevailing throughout the world?

Mr. Wilson: The Question mainly refers to newsprint manufactured in this country from pulp bought abroad. As far as the relatively small purchases of newsprint by the Government are concerned, they are not long-term bulk buying purchases.

Pottery

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action is to be taken to consolidate and safeguard our markets for pottery throughout the world; when is it expected that increased supplies will be available for the home market; and


when will decorated pottery be allowed to be sold on the open home market;
(2) what action is to be taken to increase the production of pottery so as to cover the difference between supply and demand in the world market and in the American countries in particular;
(3) what action has been taken since June, 1948, to increase the output of decorated pottery, and provide the required supplies of transfers, litho sheets, lithographic printers and decorators; and what further action is to be taken so that the orders received may be met.

Mr. H. Wilson: Before and during the period to which my hon. Friend refers, the domestic pottery industry has, with the full support of His Majesty's Government, made good progress in increasing its production and its production capacity. Much building work has been done, many continuous ovens and much modern machinery have been installed, and all possible steps have been taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service to see that whatever suitable labour has been available has been channelled into the industry, and particularly into its decorating shops. A number of shortages have held up production, especially lithographic transfers.
In order to deal with these shortages, and to see that all necessary steps are taken to increase production, I have set up under the chairmanship of a senior official of my Department, an interdepartmental Pottery Production Committee. Under the aegis of this body steps have been taken to increase by all possible means deliveries of ceramic lithographs to the industry. The ceramic lithograph printers have co-operated loyally in these endeavours, and I am happy to say that deliveries to the industry in the last quarter of 1948 were over one-third greater than average deliveries during the three previous quarters.
Because of the great efforts of managements and workers alike and the factors to which I have referred above, output is rising and markets abroad are being consolidated and won. Demand from abroad, however, in the main still greatly exceeds supply, and I would therefore appeal once more to the industry to do everything it

can to meet particularly the needs of our friends in Canada and the United States, thereby helping to reduce the dollar gap. Supplies of crockery on the home market also show a steady improvement but since the lack of decorating capacity is the main bottleneck preventing the industry from still further increasing its exports, I cannot yet foresee when it will be possible to lift the present restrictions on the sale of decorated pottery at home.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While assuring the President that this welcome step forward will be greatly welcomed in the pottery industry, may I ask him whether he agrees that this industry was subjected to most unfair foreign competition in prewar days and, if so, what steps are being taken to safeguard the future of the industry; does he agree also that the most beautiful pottery is now being produced there and can he say when our people will be allowed to get some of it?

Mr. Wilson: I agree that the most beautiful pottery is now being produced and that the industry had to face very unfair competition before the war. The failure to sell more pottery abroad, however, is caused not by foreign competition, but by lack of production.

Mr. Gerald Williams: In view of the well-known fact that cracked cups are apt to increase disease, will the Minister look after the home market irrespective of whether the china is decorated or not?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. Every step is being taken to look after the home market with plain pottery, but certainly we cannot lose dollar markets in order to supply the home market with decorated ware.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is the Minister aware that before the war Japanese manufacturers used to imitate both our patterns and designs and the names of our well-known manufacturers, and can he say specifically whether any particular action is to be taken to safeguard this position in future?

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down. It is really a separate question.

New Factories, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade where the


new factories to be established in Aberdeen are to be located; what they will produce; how many men and women, respectively, they will employ; and when they will be ready to start work.

Mr. H. Wilson: Thirteen new factories or extensions have been approved for Aberdeen and district, nine in the city itself, three in Bucksburn and one in Pitmedden; they will be engaged, on the production of paper and paper pulp, concrete goods, light castings, fertilisers, clothing, woodwork and grass drying plant, and on the maintenance and repair of motor vehicles (two establishments); one is a laundry. When in full production, they should employ about 220 men and 270 women. Seven of them have already been completed and two more are in course of construction.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that very satisfactory answer, may I ask him if he will bear in mind that considerable unemployment has been caused in Aberdeen by the dismissal of more than 100 workers from the Tullos Factory? Will he do his best to expedite the bringing into operation of new factories at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but I would remind my hon. Friend that unemployment is now only about one-fifth or one-sixth of what it was before the war.

Mr. Hughes: I agree.

Australian Wool (Stocks)

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government have now finally disposed of the stocks of Australian wool accumulated during the war.

Mr. H. Wilson: Of the stocks of 6.8 million bales of Australian wool, five million had been disposed of up to 31st December, 1948, by the United Kingdom-Dominion Wool Disposals Limited, the joint organisation set up for the purpose of the disposal of all accumulated stocks of Dominion wool.

Mr. Hurd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if most of this wool was sold for dollars?

Mr. Wilson: I could not say without notice. I should want notice to show into what markets the wool was sold. My impression is that a large proportion of it did go for sale for sterling.

Western Isles (Tweed Industry)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now permit the constituent of the hon. Member for the Western Isles, whose name has been supplied to him, to have wool spun by mainland spinners with the plant suitable for yarns for women's light weight tweeds, and then woven in the Western Isles, where large numbers of weavers have been unemployed since the increased Purchase Tax was imposed on Harris tweed last April; and whether full facilities for exporting to hard currency areas are to be granted.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. If the weaver in question will apply to the Wool Control he will be given permission to buy a supply of woollen yarn from any mainland spinner for the period beginning 1st March. There is no restriction on the export of wool cloth either to hard currency areas or elsewhere.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware, as perhaps he slightly misunderstood the Question, that this is a case of a man who has actually bought wool, but is not permitted to use available spinning capacity on the mainland and to have that yarn woven in the Western Isles? Although he is allowed to have it spun in the Western Isles, where there is no suitable plant, he must not have it woven there. It hardly helps to solve the unemployment in this industry.

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry that the supplementary question does not reduce my confusion on this matter, particularly as my hon. Friend is speaking about spinning capacity, weaving and materials, but I should be very glad to go into the question with my hon. Friend.

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large numbers of Harris Tweed small producers in the Western Isles have become unemployed since last April, do not receive unemployment insurance benefit, since they are classed as self-employed, have no adequate alternative source of livelihood and are being forced to emigrate; and what plans he has for providing insurable employment in that area in the immediate future.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am aware that sales of Harris Tweed fell considerably during


the second half of 1948, chiefly in the case of small producers who have no established trade connections, but the production figures of tweed for 1948 exceeded those of 1947. I have no knowledge of emigration as the result of the fall in sales. I cannot hold out much hope of providing more factory employment in the immediate future. But the steps taken by the Government to provide better facilities such as harbours, piers and roads, to improve the prospects of the herring industry and generally to raise the level of employment throughout the Highlands and Islands should influence employment in this part of Scotland for some time to come.

MacMillan: While I am very appreciative of the steps the Government are taking in connection with the fishing industry and other schemes, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that county councils in the Highlands and the Government's Advisory Panel and all in the industry are very concerned with the plight of the small producer, for whom there is no export industry?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend will realise the difficulties in the export market, both as regards import restrictions imposed by foreign Governments and also the change in world fashion away from tweeds. I would remind him that in the main categories of production output is between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. above pre-war.

Mr. MacMillan: Will my right hon. Friend try to take a very serious view of the peculiar difficulties of this area in which the men who had a considerable home market trade find it difficult—as he so rightly says—to get into the export market and, because of Purchase Tax at 66⁔; per cent., are now unable to continue in the home market?

Mr. Wilson: That is a question on which I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Wool Taffeta

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the President of the Board of Trade why wool taffeta for shirts is unobtainable in London shops.

Mr. H. Wilson: Because most of what is produced is being exported to dollar markets.

Export Forms (Working Party)

Mr. Horabin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet able to make a statement on the further progress which has been made by the Working Party on Export Forms.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir. As I announced on 25th March last, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson), the Working Party had completed its first interim Report which dealt specifically with Government forms. It has now completed a report on the second stage of its work—the examination of the forms required by shipowners, port authorities, banks and similar organisations in the United Kingdom. This second Report, and its recommendations, will be summarised in an early issue of the "Board of Trade Journal."
The Working Party examined seven major groups of forms, and was able to make recommendations for some simplification of procedure in respect of five of them. The Government Departments concerned are arranging for early discussion with shipowners, banks, and others of the modifications to their present practices which will be necessary to make the recommendations effective.
I believe that the second Report is a most useful document, and I hope that the bodies concerned will find it possible to carry out its recommendations without delay, thus easing the task of "form-filling" for our exporters. The Working Party has now entered on the third stage of its inquiry—the examination of the forms required by overseas Governments.

Mr. Drayson: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of forms required for sending samples overseas, because that is extremely irksome to a number of exporters when they are trying to do business?

Mr. Wilson: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is referring to Government forms, or forms required by shippers, banks and other people. The second Report dealt only with shippers, bankers and so on.

Mr. Drayson: The CD/3 form and other forms which have to be filled in when exporters send samples overseas.

Mr. Wilson: That was dealt with in the first Report and I should be glad to let the hon. Member have particulars of the findings.

Utility Shirts (Collars)

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider altering the regulations whereby two collars are supplied with a utility shirt, so that four collars can be supplied in view of the fact that matching collars are impossible to buy and wear out quicker than the shirt.

Mr. H. Wilson: No limitation is imposed upon the number of collars which may be supplied with a utility shirt.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Would not the release of a greater number of Van Heusen collars very much help to solve the problem?

Mr. Wilson: I do not think that I am in a position to engage in competitive advertising during Question Time in this House. This Question related to utility shirts many of which are of a pattern matching variety.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that there is no Board of Trade regulation limiting the number to two collars to a shirt?

Mr. Wilson: There is no regulation. The utility specification relates to two collars, but there is nothing to prevent the manufacturer making three or four.

Exports from Indonesia

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has been able to purchase from Indonesia any sugar, other food or raw materials.

Mr. H. Wilson: Negotiations are in progress at the moment.

Mr. Davies: May I ask if any attempt has been made to point out to the Dutch the damaging effect of the blockade on European and world recovery?

Mr. Wilson: We are engaged in negotiating with the Dutch for the supply of important commodities both from Holland and Indonesia, and we have not been going into the kind of question raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Davies: In view of the figure given out by the Netherlands of a 275 per cent.

increase in the production of crude oil in Indonesia, have the Government made any approach with the object of obtaining any of the Indonesian oil?

Mr. Wilson: I should not like to say what we have asked for and what we have not asked for. I can tell my hon. Friend that we have pressed for very considerable quantities of valuable exports and we have every hope of getting them if the agreement is reached.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Might we not get more of these commodities if we were to facilitate the Dutch Government in crushing the anti-social elements in Indonesia, and thereby bringing peace to the country?

Dental X-ray film

Mr. Baird: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to increase the supply of dental X-ray film for use in the National Health Service, especially for the priority services.

Mr. H. Wilson: Pending the completion of arrangements already in hand for increasing United Kingdom production, a licence has been issued for the importation of dental X-ray film to reduce the gap between supply and demand. There has also been a small reduction in the amount exported. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I, hope that in the meantime dentists will help by using available supplies economically. As regards priority services, my right hon. Friend has asked me to give an assurance that they will not be overlooked.

Textiles

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now say whether wool and cotton mixture textiles will be affected by the relaxations announced in the clothing ration.

Mr. H. Wilson: For the purposes of the Consumer Rationing Order, woven wool cloth is material containing more than 15 per cent. by weight of wool or animal fibre. All cloths complying with this definition are, therefore, unrationed, apart from the exceptions made in my statement on 31st January—namely, gaberdines and utility cloth in the 236 series.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: While welcoming this further relaxation of rationing, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can hold out any hope that there will be a reduction in price, as regards suitings, for example, made from these textile mixtures?

Mr. Wilson: While we maintain the strictest possible price control on production, any further reductions in price within that control are matters for the trade.

Commercial Treaties (Consultations)

Mr. Cobb: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consult more fully with industries likely to be affected by negotiations with other countries for a commercial treaty before those negotiations commence.

Mr. H. Wilson: Provision has been made for full consultation where necessary with industries likely to be affected by projected trade negotiations with other countries. I will certainly, however, continue to watch the position and to make any further adjustments in the machinery of consultation that seem necessary.

Mr. Cobb: Will my right hon. Friend remember, while watching this, that the F.B.I. and the trade associations do not always represent the opinions of people on the job?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, and the main form of consultation is not through such national bodies but via the production department with the individual industries concerned.

Mr. Charles Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman watch the interests of market gardeners in this country?

Mr. Wilson: They, like every other production interest, are kept in touch through the appropriate production department.

Hungarian Debts (Discussions)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of recent happenings in Hungary concerning Cardinal Mindszenty, he will consider the desirability of breaking off negotiations for a trade agreement with Hungary.

Mr. H. Wilson: There are no negotiations for a trade agreement with Hungary in progress. Discussions with a Hungarian delegation are, however, in progress in London for the settlement of Hungarian debts to the United Kingdom. It is not intended to break off these negotiations in view of recent happenings in Hungary concerning Cardinal Mindszenty.

Toy Pistols (Import Licences)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of imitation revolvers manufactured by the Kilgore Manufacturing Company, Ohio, and selling in this country for about 6s. each, for the import of which from the United States of America he has granted licences; whether, as these painted black can be used in hold-ups, he will prohibit their importation; and why dollars are being spent on such imports.

Mr. H. Wilson: These American water pistols are imported under the general heading of toys, dolls, etc., under the Token Import arrangements of which the House is aware. The annual quota for this class of goods is 2,450 dollars c.i.f., which represents 20 per cent. by value of the pre-war trade with the United States. Any risk of misuse by criminals of toy pistols clearly could not be dealt with by import restrictions alone.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the three most sensational hold-ups in past years, namely, the gaolbreak of John Dillinger from an American gaol was accomplished by the use of a pistol that was in fact carved out of wood and had been polished with boot polish? In view of these circumstances does it not show that there is no limit to the ingenuity of hold-up men in building up imitation revolvers?

Fishing Industry (Nets)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade the comparative cost of nets for the fishing industry, trawl and drift, for the years 1938 and 1948; and how long it is now necessary to wait for fulfilment of orders for nets.

Mr. H. Wilson: Comparative costs for the years 1938 and 1948 are: trawl nets


£12 10s. 0d. and £33 5s. 0d.; drift nets £3 12s. 6d. and £12 0s. 0d. respectively. There is no material delay in deliveries of trawl nets, but fulfilment of orders for drift nets often takes up several months. I am advised, however, that fishermen who have placed their orders in accordance with the usual practice at the end of one season for delivery in time for the following fishing season have been able to obtain reasonable supplies.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that my information is that with regard to drift nets the period of waiting is about two years, and that this is a very grave handicap indeed on the whole of the industry, particularly during the East Anglian herring fishing season?

Mr. Wilson: Such inquiries as I have been able to make suggest that while there has been a long delay the position is improving, and it is now only a period of some months.

Tobacco (Anglo-U.S.A. Talks)

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the recent Anglo-United States talks, he will be in a position to reduce the price of tobacco and cigarettes in the near future.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: In view of the saving in dollars that is likely to ensue if these agreements are satisfactorily settled, does not the Minister think that it is time, or that it will be time when they are settled, that a reduction should be made in the cost of tobacco and cigarettes to the smoking public?

Mr. Wilson: These talks were not concerned with prices, but with the amount of dollars which in our present position we could afford to spend on American tobacco. This year's crop of American tobacco will be sold as usual by auction in the second half of the year, and obviously no one can know in advance what price it is likely to fetch.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it not the case that in any event by far the greater proportion of the price of cigarettes is the Government tax?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir.

Film Industry

Mr. Blackburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what immediate action he is taking to safeguard the British film industry, in view of the widespread closing of film studios.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am in close touch with both sides of the industry, and I expect that the immediate position will be somewhat improved by the establishment of the National Film Finance Corporation with wider powers of assistance than those enjoyed by the interim Film Finance Company. I am also considering what, if any, additional measures may be required to satisfy the requirements of long-term policy. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) announcing the setting up of a Working Party to examine production costs as a matter of urgency. This is perhaps the most urgent problem facing the industry, but I must emphasise that it is fundamentally one that the industry itself must resolve.

Mr. Blackburn: While acknowledging that the President of the Board of Trade has done more than anyone previously to deal with this problem, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that there is a very grave crisis in the film industry, and will he bring it to the attention of the Cabinet?

Mr. Wilson: There is undoubtedly a grave crisis in the film industry. It has been having recurrent financial crises throughout its history, though they have been rather more frequent lately. The first and best thing that the industry can do to get over this crisis is to get its production costs down to a reasonable level. The second thing which is being urgently considered is a redistribution of box office takings as between the producer, on the one hand, and the exhibitors and distributors, on the other.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing something else, and bring pressure to bear upon his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that he does not take so large a share of the box office receipts?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Benn Levy: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that so long as the industry continues to organise itself in such a way that its producing side is starved while its selling side is sated, he will not pay too much attention to suggestions of that kind made by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd)?

Mr. Wilson: It is an unfortunate fact that in dealing with this crisis we have to take the industry as we find it and not as it ought to be.

Cotton Industry (Subsidy)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the lowest number of spindles he is now prepared to consider for subsidy; and whether he is intending to make any special arrangements in respect of vertical combers.

Mr. H. Wilson: During the passage of the Cotton Spinning (Re-equipment Subsidy) Act through Parliament, it was made clear that we did not propose to insist rigidly on the figure of 400,000 spindles; I am ready to consider on their merits recommendations by the Cotton Board in respect of somewhat smaller groups which they consider acceptable in other respects. In particular, consideration would be given to a suitably organised vertical group controlling something in the region of 250,000 spindles.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman please read the leading article on this subject in the "Manchester Guardian" this morning?

Mr. Wilson: I have read it.

Statutory Instruments

Sir John Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to amend S.I., 1946, Nos. 1413 and 1415 so as to make them intelligible.

Mr. H. Wilson: Both S.R. & O. 1946 No. 1413 and S.I. 1948 No. 13 (which replaced S.R. & O. 1946 No. 1415) are being amended and consolidated, but I cannot promise any great simplification. Our general experience is that the

vast majority of manufacturers both understand and substantially comply with the provisions of these and similar orders.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 1st February a firm was prosecuted at the Old Bailey for alleged offences against these orders and that after four days' hearing the jury said that the orders were too complicated to be understood, whereupon the judge directed an acquittal; what is the use of the right hon. Gentleman making more orders if no one can understand them?

Mr. David Renton: Will the Minister say whether it is the intention of his Department to make these orders understandable only by the experts concerned or is it their purpose to make them intrinsically clear?

Mr. Wilson: It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the remarks made in court. I have been given to understand that within the trade the orders are fairly widely understood. Of course, as long as it is necessary to control prices in the footwear industry at cost plus, it is extremely difficult to find any simplification of the procedure, but we are trying to do that.

Spectacle Lenses (Export)

Mr. Symonds: asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of spectacle lenses have been exported to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics since July, 1948.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am unable to give the figure for spectacle lenses only, but the number of lenses for spectacles, goggles, eyeglasses or monocles exported to the U.S.S.R. from July to December, 1948, was 168.

Mr. Symonds: Will my right hon. Friend bring this answer to the notice of the opticians, because some of them are suggesting to their customers that the delay in the supply of glasses here is not so much due to the vastly increased demand as to the fact that we are exporting lenses by the million to the U.S.S.R.?

Mr. Wilson: I hope that the figure of 168 will lay that particular rumour.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of that export consisted of monocles?

Mr. Wilson: I have made clear that the figure is the total for all kinds of lenses and I cannot split it.

Ties (Colours)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions at present exist on the manufacture of ties in club, school, college, university, etc., colours; and whether he will now relax those restrictions.

Mr. H. Wilson: There are no such restrictions.

Mr. Macpherson: Is it not a fact that 75 per cent. of all ties have to be exported and, that being the case, is it not clear that there is no inducement to manufacturers to manufacture club ties?

Mr. Wilson: The Question related to restrictions. There are no such restrictions, though with the general shortage of home market cloth there may be a tendency for weavers to avoid patterns which entail short runs in production.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now very difficult to buy a tie in a good, bright, pillar-box red and will he take some action to deal with that problem?

Mr. Cobb: Will my right hon. Friend seek means to export the wearers of these old school ties?

Mr. Macpherson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter again, because all of us need to buy a tie from time to time? Surely, we ought to be able to buy a tie in the colours of the club or school to which we belong?

Mr. Wilson: I have already said that there are no restrictions. This is a question for the manufacturers. It must be for them to judge what the demand is and to try to meet it as they see fit.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL SUPPLIES

Doctors

Mr. Drayson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what instructions he has issued to his officers in connection with the allocation of petrol to doctors by reason of the coming into force of the National Health Scheme.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Regional petroleum officers have standing instructions to allow doctors sufficient petrol to meet their essential requirements. No special instructions were necessary, therefore, by reason of the coming into force of the National Health Service.

Mr. Drayson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an impression among some doctors that those doctors who have joined the National Health Scheme are receiving more favourable treatment than those who have remained outside?

Mr. Gaitskell: That impression is entirely without foundation.

Inman Mobile Cinemas (Allocation)

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power on what grounds the petrol allocation of Inman Mobile Cinemas Limited, 34, Great King Street, Dumfries, for the period commencing 1st January, 1949, has been cut down by two-thirds on transfer of the firm to the responsibility of his Department.

Mr. Gaitskell: I regret that there was a misunderstanding in this case. The issue of one-third of the previous allowance was an interim one while the case was being examined with the Ministry of Transport. A further allowance will be issued.

Mr. Macpherson: In view of the fact that this company is doing a great service to the community by giving cinema shows in rural districts, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the allowance will not be less than it was before?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, I cannot give that assurance. We must look into this case, which has certain very special features.

Supplementary Allowance

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now reconsider his refusal of 30th November to grant extra petrol to Mr. C. Lupton, of Rooks-bury Mill, Mead Hedges, Andover, who had had an attack leading to hemiplegia and is unable to walk; and, in view of the medical certificate which states that


Mr. Lupton's general health will not improve unless he has fresh air which can only be obtained for him by drives in his car, if an allocation of petrol will now be made.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have reconsidered Mr. Lupton's case. I am afraid I cannot increase his present supplementary allowance, but as from 1st May the amount of his standard ration will not be deducted and he will therefore be able to enjoy about 90 miles more motoring a month.

Mr. Donner: In view of all the facts, ought not the Minister to reconsider this case? Surely, there is a limit to the lack of humanity which is shown by his Department?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not agree that there is any lack of humanity in this business. The applicant in question is getting as much as any other person in the same position. He will get a substantial increase from 1st May.

Mr. Donner: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the medical certificate which I sent him which states specifically that unless he gets extra petrol his health cannot improve?

Mr. Gaitskell: He will be getting extra petrol.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Shop-Window Lighting

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the Government will now remove the ban on shop-window lighting altogether, in view of the fact that this lighting is only required after nightfall when the peak period load would not be affected.

Mr. Gaitskell: There can be no question of permitting display lighting during the peak load period, part of which occurs after nightfall during much of the Winter. Moreover a relaxation of the restriction even if confined to off-peak hours would involve additional coal consumption which cannot be considered until at least the end of the Winter.

Mr. De la Bère: What really convincing evidence is there that a continuation of this ban is really necessary; are the

people of this country to live in perpetual gloom and austerity because we have a Government like this?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sorry that the hon. Member should be so distressed about this restriction but before we lift it we must consider first whether we have sufficient coal.

Mr. De la Bère: That is not a satisfactory answer. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Gas Area Boards (Members)

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what are names of the members of the Gas Area Boards constituted under the Gas Act, 1948, appointed since 1st January, 1949; and what are the dates of their appointments.

Mr. Gaitskell: As the reply consists of a number of names and dates, I will with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. For the convenience of the hon. and gallant Member and the House, I have also included appointments made prior to 1st January, 1949.

Colonel Clarke: While appreciating the Minister's suggestion, with which I agree, can he confirm that all these Area Boards were established by the end of January, and that they consisted of a chairman and three other members?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, that is the case, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see from the list which I am circulating.

Following is the reply:

Scottish Gas Board

Chairman—Sir Andrew Clow, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—D. D. Burns, 23rd December, 1948.
Full-time member—D. D. Melvin, 31st December, 1948.
Full-time member—C. Murdoch, 9th February, 1949.
Part-time member-J Campbell, 23rd December, 1948.

Northern Gas Board

Chairman—E. Crowther, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—J. R. Bradshaw, 31st January, 1949.
Part-time member—Lieut.-Colonel H. Haswell Peile, 7th January, 1949.
Part-time member—Alderman C. R. Flynn, 13th January, 1949.


Part-time member—H. A. Sisson. 13th January, 1949.
Part-time member—J. J. Adams 27th January, 1949.

North Western Gas Board

Chairman—Colonel W. M. Carr, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—A. Henshall, 31st December, 1948.
Part-time member—E. W. Tame, 7th January, 1949.
Part-time member—Councillor C. E. P. Stott, 7th January, 1949.

North Eastern Gas Board

Chairman—Dr. Roger Edwards, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—G. E. Currier, 7th January, 1949.
Full-time member—A. Macdonald, 10th February, 1949.
Part-time member—Professor A. L Roberts, 23rd December, 1948.
Part-time member—G. H. Bagnall, 23rd December, 1948.

East Midlands Gas Board

Chairman—H. F. H. Jones, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—Sydney Smith, 27th January, 1949.
Part-time member—Councillor S. J. Perry, 7th January, 1949.
Part-time member—E. D. A. Herbert. 24th January, 1949.
Part-time member—J. Green, 27th January, 1949.
Part-time member—Frank Lee 9th February, 1949.

West Midlands Gas Board

Chairman—G. le B. Diamond, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—G. A. Matthews, 23rd December, 1948.
Full-time member—A. W Lee, 31st December, 1948.
Part-time member—A. W Smith. 23rd December, 1948.
Part-time member—C. G. Spragg. 17th January, 1949.

Wales Gas Board

Chairman—T. Mervyn Jones, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—P. S. Snelling, 1st January, 1949.
Full-time member—E. M. Edwards, 31st December, 1948.
Part-time member—W. Jones, 23rd December, 1948.
Part-time member—F. E. Price. 23rd December, 1948.
Part time member—Alderman J. E. Emanuel, 23rd December, 1948.
Part-time member—J. C. Clay. 23rd December, 1948.

Eastern Gas Board

Chairman—Sir John Stephenson, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—J. H. Dyde, 23rd December, 1948.
Part-time member—A. M. Baer, 7th January, 1949.
Part-time member—Edward Woodall, 13th January, 1949.

North Thames Gas Board

Chairman—M. Milne Watson, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—F. M. Birks, 23rd December, 1948.
Part-time member—Dr E. V. Evans, 18th January, 1949.
Part-time member—L. C. Hansen, 7th January, 1949.
Part-time member—G. D. Dillon, 10th February, 1949.

South Eastern Gas Board

Chairman—W. K. Hutchison, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—R. S. Johnson, 23rd December, 1948.
Part-time member—Tom Brown, 31st December, 1948.
Part-time member—A. Dalgleish, 7th January, 1949.
Part-time member—K. W. Hickman, 7th January, 1949.
Part-time member—Dame Vera Laughton-Matthews, 31st December, 1948.

Southern Gas Board

Chairman—O. R. Guard, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—S. E. Whitehead, 28th January, 1949.
Part-time member—R. P. Chester, 31st December, 1948.
Part-time member—A. E. Smith, 27th January, 1949.

South Western Gas Board

Chairman—C. H. Chester, 18th November, 1948.
Deputy Chairman—E. R. V. Porter, 17th January, 1949.
Part-time member—A. W. Grant, 31st December, 1948.
Part-time member—H. V. Slade, 7th January, 1949.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Export Prices

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now state the result of the consideration which, at his request, has been given by the National Coal Board to the representations from the Marshall Plan Administration for a reduction in the export price of British coal; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: As I informed the hon. Member on the 9th December last, the representations received from the Economic Co-operation Administration referred to the export prices of United Kingdom coal in relation to those of Bizone coal. These representations were the subject of a fact-finding discussion between the Board and the coal authorities of the Bizone in December last and the findings of this discussion have been sent to the Economic Co-operation Administration.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is it not the fact that we have already agreed to reduce the price of our export coal on American instructions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Will the Minister answer my question without the reference to American instructions—we can judge for ourselves? If it is the case that we have to make up the extra sum somewhere, will the Minister consider taking it off the £164 million which apparently we are going to pay to the former coalowners?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is incorrect that the Coal Board have reduced their prices on American instructions. It is for the National Coal Board to decide at what price they will sell in the light of the commercial situation.

Welsh Steam Coal (Hampshire)

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he now proposes to take to supply Hampshire with Welsh steam coal for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 31st January.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no Welsh steam coal has been available in Hampshire for agricultural purposes since this Government came into office and that this is regarded by farmers as an unnecessary hardship?

Mr. Gaitskell: There has been no Welsh steam coal in Hampshire since 1944 and it is not thought necessary that there should be.

Regional Consumers' Councils

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when it is intended that Regional Consumers' Councils will be set up to consider the problems of industry and of domestic consumers, and to provide some safeguards for consumers' interests which cannot be adequately met by the Central Consumers' Councils now functioning remote from those faced with problems daily, particularly in the iron and steel and other industrial areas of the country.

Mr. Gaitskell: In their annual reports for the year ended 30th June, 1948, both the Domestic and Industrial Coal Consumers' Councils indicated that they did

not favour for the present the appointment of Regional Councils. I will, however, bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of both Councils.

Mr. Cooper: Could my right hon. Friend say if he has had any representations made to him on the lines of the unsatisfactory and inadequate procedure that applies at present; could he review the whole matter to see if at least the sanction of sitting in public could be applied to the procedure of these councils; and could he introduce a system of decentralisation into the work of these councils?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not aware of any representations of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend. The question whether or not to sit in public is a matter for the councils themselves.

Supplies, Glasgow

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of complaints about delays in delivery to Glasgow coal merchants during December and January last; and what steps are being taken to remedy this situation.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. Deliveries to merchants in Scotland generally have fallen short because Scottish coal output has been below expectations. To deal with the situation, the Scottish Division of the National Coal Board has been relieved of certain other commitments to supply large coal, and at the same time arrangements have been made for additional supplies to be sent from England.

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many tons of coal delivered to Glasgow merchants last month formed the supplies which were sold to customers at the retail prices of 4s. 5d. and 4s. 6d. per hundredweight.

Gaitskell: Three thousand, eight hundred and thirty tons of coal from Northumberland were despatched to Glasgow merchants in January, for which the maximum retail price was first fixed at 4s. 5d. per hundredweight and raised to 4s. 6d. per hundredweight on 24th January.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave dissatisfaction with


these prices, as compared with 3s. 10d. per cwt. which was normally paid for equally good coal for domestic use?

Mr. Gaitskell: Of course I appreciate that this coal is priced rather higher than Scottish coal, but the price has to cover increased transport costs.

Sir William Darling: Is it not the case that there have been more exports of Scottish coal over the past year?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly, that is so, as the exports from Great Britain as a whole have increased.

Mrs. Cullen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the City of Glasgow, merchants are holding up supplies to ordinary people and selling them after dusk in the residential quarters of the city at higher prices?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have no information to that effect, but if my hon. Friend will give me details I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (CONFERENCE)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now state what steps he is taking to organise a national campaign to stem the wave of crime in accordance with the appeal of the Archbishop of York.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The Minister of Education and I propose to invite representatives of the churches, of local authorities and of other interests concerned, to a conference at the beginning of March to discuss the problem of juvenile delinquency.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that answer will give great satisfaction, and will he give all the support he can to the lead given by His Grace?

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the wise words of Mr. Basil Henriques and other London magistrates on keeping a sense of perspective about this increase in juvenile delinquency?

Mr. Ede: I hope that one of the results of this conference will be to enable the public to see the matter in its true perspective. The conference will not be confined to juvenile delinquency, but will have the general background of moral standards under consideration.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister draw the attention of this conference to the obvious fact that, if they can get these young people interested in Communism they will keep them away from crime?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINIANS (VISITS TO U.K.)

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now consider relaxing the ban on visits to the United Kingdom by Palestinians.

Mr. Ede: I am prepared to consider applications for the grant of visas for visits to the United Kingdom made by persons resident in Israel who possess valid passports or other equivalent travel documents that will enable them to return. Instructions to this effect will be issued within the next few days.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the Manchester area, there are a great many British subjects of Jewish origin whose grandparents, and, in some cases, parents, are living in Palestine, and who cannot get visas even to come to the weddings of their daughters and granddaughters in Manchester? Will he take steps to see that these are expedited, because a case in which one has been refused is as recent as 5th February?

Mr. Ede: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my answer, which apparently he has not heard, and he will then find that the problem he mentions is being dealt with rapidly.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend also take into particular consideration the granting of facilities for students and merchants to come to this country from Israel—in order speedily to establish good relations between the two countries?

Mr. Ede: I am anxious to give all the help I can to establishing good relations, and I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that the answer I have given goes a long way towards that objective.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he is allowing only Israelis to come in, and is not considering people living in other party of Palestine; and will he give an assurance that in no case will ex-members of the Stern Gang be allowed in?

Mr. Ede: I should not think that they will be able to get visas, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman can rest assured that the immigration officers know exactly how to deal with such persons should they arrive.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOTTERIES, BETTING AND GAMING (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Nally: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement with regard to the proposal to recommend to His Majesty the setting up of a Royal Commission on Lotteries, Betting and Gaming.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. The King has been pleased to approve the setting up of a Royal Commission on Lotteries, Betting and Gaming with the following Terms of Reference:
To inquire into the existing law and practice thereunder relating to lotteries, betting and gaming, with particular reference to the developments which have taken place since the report of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting in 1933, and to report what changes, if any, are desirable and practicable.
I am glad to be able to announce that the right hon. H. U. Willink, K.C., M.C., Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, will act as Chairman. I am not yet in a position to announce the names of the other members of the Commission.

Mr. Nally: While extending my heartiest thanks for the Prime Minister's rather delayed reply, may I ask him whether, pending the results of the work of the Royal Commission, which must necessarily be protracted, he will give an assurance that the existence of the Royal Commission will not necessarily impede action by the Government to deal with gross cases of profiteering, waste of labour and materials and other malpractices in betting and gambling, convincing evidence of which a group of hon. Members and myself propose to present to the Prime Minister at a very early date?

The Prime Minister: I should like to wait and see that.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN, 1951

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Lord President of the Council what amount will be spent in 1949 and 1950 on the preparations for the 1951 Exhibition; by whom will it be borne; and what amount of labour will be diverted for this purpose.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I take it that my hon. Friend refers to the exhibitions to be held on the South Bank of the Thames and elsewhere in connection with the Festival of Britain, 1951. No estimates have yet been drawn up of the amount to be spent in preparation of these exhibitions in 1950, but estimates for the financial year 1949–50 will be published shortly. In this connection, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) on 7th February. Apart from normal allied services, the direct cost will be borne by the Festival of Britain Office, which it is proposed shall be granted a separate Vote for this purpose and for carrying out the other responsibilities with which it is charged in preparing for the Festival. Insufficient work has yet been done on the planning of the exhibitions to enable any useful estimates to be made of the labour required.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I take it that, while the cost of this Exhibition will be borne by the United Kingdom as a whole, every part of the United Kingdom will have its products adequately shown, particularly Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: Scotland, as I explained the other day, will have a separate committee and various things will be arranged there. The whole of the cost in connection with London, and particularly in relation to the Bill to be considered today, will not come out of Government funds. There will be charges upon other authorities.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: When my right hon. Friend talks of the preparations on the South Bank and elsewhere, does he include the possibility of extending part of the Festival of Britain to the Borough of Brentford and Chiswick?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend knows that I have recently visited his constituency, and I have a feeling that the vigor-


ous people in that neighbourhood will be doing something on their own initiative.

Mrs. Mann: Apart from celebrating the return of the Labour Government in 1950, what are we celebrating in 1951?

Mr. Morrison: It would not be right for me to go into the first matter, but with regard to what we are celebrating in 1951, we are celebrating the centenary of the great Exhibition of 1851, and the great progress Britain has made in various fields since that time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Under Tory rule."]—of course, I knew that those few comforting words would be received with satisfaction on the other side—in industry, science, and so on.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Training Grants (Applications)

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of Labour how many Further Education and Training Grants have been allowed under paragraph 5 of his leaflet to men desiring to qualify for a professional career for which their pre-war circumstances did not give them opportunity, but whose war record shows that they have capabilities which would justify the expenditure of public money.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I regret that this information is not available, as separate statistics for this class of case are not kept.

Miss Bacon: Would my right hon. Friend look into this matter again because it appears that many men who ought to be awarded a grant under this paragraph are not being awarded one on the ground that their career was not interrupted by war service?

Mr. Isaacs: I understood that the question merely asked for statistical information, and not merit. On the question of information, it would mean the examination of over 230,000 cases, and I am not prepared to undertake that task.

Mr. George Thomas: Would my right hon. Friend give the House some idea of the number of cases in which grants have been made, because there is a widespread feeling among these applicants that the paragraph is, to a large extent, being ignored?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I think, from what information I have gathered by looking over some of the cases, that many of those that have been rejected were properly rejected, but, certainly, the applicants have been disappointed.

Mr. K. Lindsay: Would my right hon. Friend try to put a more generous interpretation upon this paragraph, because, had that been done, quite a lot of applications would not have been rejected?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not accept for one moment that there has been any ungenerous interpretation of this paragraph. I am satisfied that where leniency can be shown and we can go over the borderline of the system, we do so, and not the contrary.

Safety in Mines (Conference)

Mr. Thomas Brown: asked the Minister of labour if any representative from his Department attended the three days' conference held at Geneva on 31st January, 1949, to consider a model safety code for underground work in coal mines, which conference was attended by representatives from Belgium, Canada, France, India, the Netherlands, Poland and the U.S.A.; and whether he will make the report of the conference available to Members of the House.

Mr. Isaacs: This meeting, which was convened by the International Labour Office, was attended by the Chief Inspector of Mines, and was of a preliminary character. In the circumstances, it is not proposed that the report should be made generally available. In the light of the discussions which took place, the International Labour Office will prepare documents for submission to a full technical conference at which representatives of Governments, employers and workers will be present.

Mr. Brown: When the subsequent conference takes place, will my right hon. Friend see that we have a report of that conference to which he referred in his answer?

Mr. Isaacs: It is the regular practice. This is the preliminary conference, and it will be followed by a tripartite conference at the end of this year at which employers, Governments and workers will


be represented, and then the draft recommendations will be circulated to the Governments. I think at that point, or at the subsequent point when the report is discussed, it will be circulated.

Colonel Clarke: In view of the fact that this information is very relevant to the consideration of Part II of the Coal Industry Bill at present in Committee, could the right hon. Gentleman make at any rate some part of it available in the very near future?

Mr. Isaacs: It will be made available as soon as the actual report is received. This was a meeting of officials to lay down the kind of information to be sought in order to form the basis of discussion, but, most certainly, it will be published as soon as it is ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

OIL (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what price Middle East oil is being sold to the British Government.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The British Government buy oil in various parts of the world, and in many cases do not know what is the country of origin. Generally speaking, the contract prices are based upon current world market prices, but in some cases there are long-term supply contracts.

Davies: Is my hon. Friend telling the House that he has no idea of, and cannot work out the price of Middle Eastern oil; secondly, is he aware that while the aggregate volume of oil has only increased by 50 per cent. since 1938, the price has more than trebled; thirdly, is he aware that this has a deterrent effect on our economy; and, lastly, what steps are being taken towards the ratification of the Anglo-American Oil Treaty of 1945?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member only asked at what price.

Mr. Davies: May I ask my hon. Friend if I am going to get an answer to at least some of those supplementaries?

Mr. Jay: The answer to my hon. Friend's first Question is that the price

varies from one contract to another. The answer to his other questions is that in this country the economic price of oil is controlled by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Industrial Organisation (Leaflets and Charts)

Mr. Cooper: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of leaflets and organisational charts, describing the Regional Organisation for Industry, which have been distributed in each of the 11 Regions; who is responsible for this distribution; to what types of organisation and individuals this information is sent; and what other forms of publicity are intended to be given to the services that the Regional Organisation has to offer.

Mr. Jay: Fifty-seven thousand, five hundred leaflets and organisation charts describing the work of the Regional Boards for Industry have already been distributed by the Regional Boards to date. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the distribution in each Region. The Regional Boards for Industry are responsible for the distribution, which in general has been made to industrial firms, Chambers of Trade and Commerce, trade unions, trade associations and other bodies concerned with industry. Every opportunity is taken through the Press, broadcasting and other media to explain the work of the Boards, and as the booklets were issued as recently as the end of last year, it is considered that no further special form of publicity is for the time being necessary.

Mr. Cooper: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if the services of the Regional Organisation for Industry were more widely known, those services could be expanded in the interest of increasing industrial efficiency and productivity; and would he consider what further steps might be taken for this purpose, such as, for instance, the employment of films?

Mr. Jay: It is desirable that they should be widely known, but there must be some limit to the amount of public money spent on these things.

Major Bruce: Could these documents be made available to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Jay: I think they are already available to Members of Parliament.

Following are the details:

The figures for each Region are:


Northern
1,500


East and West Ridings
7,000


North Midland
3,500


Eastern
3,000


London and South Eastern
14,000


Southern
2,500


South Western
2,000


Wales
2,500


Midland
12,500


North Western
6,500


Scotland
2,500

Shuttlecocks (Import Duty)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that when the Malayan badminton team arrived at Tilbury on 27th December they were charged £56 Customs Duty on their shuttlecocks; and why this team was not given the same facilities as during the Olympic Games.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The Malayan team imported 1,200 shuttlecocks of Danish manufacture on which duty and Purchase Tax were quite properly charged. The concessions granted on the occasion of the Olympic Games were justified by special circumstances which no longer obtain. I am prepared to authorise refund of duty and tax on any of these shuttlecocks which remain unused and are re-exported by the Malayan team, if due notice is given to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this team has always practised with a particular type of shuttlecock which they had to import into this country; and does he realise what an enormous amount of damage is done in the Colonial Empire by this sort of unimaginative cheeseparing? Will he not return the whole lot?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have to be fair to our own traders, and had we allowed this enormous quantity to come in duty free, it would have been unfair to those who make them in this country.

Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this particular type of shuttlecock is not manufactured in this country?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The short answer is that the hon. Member is grossly misinformed on that matter.

Members of Parliament (Railway Passes)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in view of the fact that the railways have been nationalised, he will provide Members of Parliament with a pass between their constituencies and London, and so save the time, labour and paper involved in the present practice whereby a ticket has to be obtained for each journey.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, I do not consider that the savings mentioned would justify the extra cost to the Exchequer of such an arrangement.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say how it would involve any additional public expenditure in view of the fact that the railways are nationalised, and that any profit would go to the State and any loss would be made up out of public funds?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is the error into which the hon. Gentleman has fallen. Railway deficits, if any, do not fall on the, Exchequer.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on whom they do fall?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there has been any change in comparative prices of season tickets and ordinary return tickets since the railways were nationalised?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down that question, I shall be happy to answer it.

Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that season tickets are already issued to Members of this House who care to apply for them at least for a distance of 25 miles away, because I, personally, used to have a season ticket when I travelled up frequently from my home to Parliament.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That, of course, is true, but to make it worthwhile and not an extra charge, it is essential that hon. Members should travel at least four days in any one week. That is necessary in order to make the issue of a season ticket an economic proposition.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Would the Minister give consideration to the practice which


is being followed in the take-over of undertakings whereby an average over a number of years is taken? Would he consult with the Transport Commission and try to arrive at a figure which represents an average amount paid for hon. Members travelling and then allow the issue of a season ticket, or some form of annual ticket, on that basis without any loss to the Transport Commission or any charge on the Treasury?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is an interesting suggestion, but it has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Since any hon. Member can travel as frequently as he likes to his constituency by filling up forms, what possible difference would it make, except extra convenience, to give him a permanent pass?

Mr. John Lewis: In view of what is obviously a widespread feeling in the House that Members of Parliament should have season tickets—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—would my right hon. Friend look at this matter once again?

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the Minister say whether he has in fact asked the Transport Commission whether they would issue a season ticket at a special rate? If he has not, would he be prepared to approach them on this matter?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This matter has been gone into on more than one occasion, and fairly recently, and I see no reason why I should again approach the Minister of Transport to discuss this matter in view of the facts which are obvious, or should be obvious, to hon. Members.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about Business for next week.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday,14th February—Consideration of the Report from the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee).

Committee stage of the Juries Bill.

Tuesday, 15th February, and Wednesday, 16th February—Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Colonial Naval Defence Bill (Lords).

Thursday, 17th February—Supply (1st allotted day): Committee stage of Civil Supplementary Estimates beginning with National Health Service, England and Wales and Scotland; Colonial Office and other Colonial Votes; National Assistance Board.

Friday, 18th February—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Churchill: With regard to the Business which the right hon. Gentleman has announced for Thursday, the Committee stage of the Civil Supplementary Estimates, might I ask him whether the presentation of Supplementary Estimates of £221 million, or about a quarter of the total pre-war Budget, is not an event without precedent in time of peace, four years after fighting has stopped; whether it does not constitute a major incident in our policy? If that be so, will he not arrange that at least three days shall be given to the discussion of these enormous Supplementary Estimates, representing as they do the most wild miscalculations on the part of the estimating authorities and an enormous addition to the burden of the nation at a time when taxation—[Interruption]—already bears so heavily on all? I can quite understand the touchiness of the Minister of Health. He need not shake his finger at me.
May I say that I should like—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Withdraw? I reiterate. Might I ask the Leader of the House whether he will undertake that three days shall be given to these Supplementary Estimates, this Thursday and the one following and another opportunity after that? It is not only the large issue of an enormous addition to our expenditure brought about by the grossest carelessness, but there are many particular details which require the careful investigation of the House—[Interruption.] I have couched every word I have said in interrogative form.

Mr. Morrison: I gather that this is a dress rehearsal for the Debate which will


take place next week, and I can only say we have listened with great interest to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made and we shall be very pleased to have a further edition of the speech. [Interruption.]

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Let the Opposition come along.

Mr. Morrison: In regard to the question of additional days, that is, of course, entirely a matter within the power of the Opposition as to what use they would wish to make of the Supply days at their disposal.

Mr. Churchill: We consider—and I am giving this information to the right hon. Gentleman—that the gravity of the points raised by these Supplementary Estimates is such that we should not press for the Debate, which I asked for yesterday, on the conditions by which members are nominated to the European Assembly, until the week after next. If desirable, and if a second day's Debate is given on Thursday week, then this question of the method of election to the European Council could take place in the first week in March. Will he consider that? Will he also take into consideration that it may be necessary—I do not say it will—to set down a Vote of Censure on the Government's gross financial mismanagement?

Mr. Morrison: With regard to the second day's Debate on Supply, I am sure that can be arranged through the usual channels. With regard to Western Union and the Consultative Assembly and so on, I must adhere to the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. If of course the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition does not ask for any Debate yet, any exchanges between us on that matter could be deferred perhaps until next week, but I must indicate that in the meantime the Government would adhere to the attitude which was adopted by the Prime Minister in the interchanges with the right hon. Gentleman which took place yesterday.

Mr. Churchill: But the right hon. Gentleman, I presume, realises that we cannot wait for the indefinite delaying processes the Prime Minister has employed? If these abuses are prolonged unduly, it will be necessary to raise the

matter in the House, even though the elaborate procedure behind which the right hon. Gentleman is sheltering himself is endorsed.

Mr. Morrison: I was here yesterday and have read the proceedings, and the right hon. Gentleman's attitude is quite unjustified.

Mr. Churchill: No, it is not.

Mr. Morrison: There are certain international discussions proceeding, and it would be inappropriate for the Government to make up their minds with a view to informing the House before those international discussions have reached the appropriate point. We propose to follow the normal course in these matters, and in due course, no doubt, the Government's decision will be made known to the House.

Mr. Churchill: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we do not feel ourselves in any way bound not to take action to bring about a Debate by the length of time the Government may take in arriving at their conclusions?

Mr. Morrison: There are means within the control of the Opposition—Supply Days and otherwise—by which they can force a Debate, but I do suggest to the House that it really is unwise that we should bring this to an issue until the international consultations have reached the point at which it would be proper for the Government to announce their decision.

Mr. Churchill: The Government are using them as a cloak.

Mr. Crawley: In view of the importance of Colonial economic development, can my right hon. Friend say whether that subject will be debated on a Supply Day on Colonial affairs?

Mr. Morrison: I think some such arrangement was come to last year in connection with the economic side of Colonial policy. It is, of course, a matter for the Opposition to decide what they wish to do with Supply time.

Mr. Warbey: Is the House to have an opportunity of debating the policy of the proposed Atlantic Pact before the Foreign Secretary goes to sign it, which, we understand, he is likely to do in two or three weeks' time?

Mr. Morrison: This, as I understand it, is a pact of a nature which, when the Government have come to their conclusions, will be subject to the approval of the House of Commons. Therefore, the rights of the House will not be lost. However, I think it would be somewhat novel and not to be welcomed in this case that we should be involved in Parliamentary Debate before the Foreign Secretary has gone on with the negotiations and tile completion of the discussions. However, I think my hon. Friend will be happy about this, that it will be subject in the end to the approval of the House of Commons.

Mr. Warbey: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that this pact involves a very large new departure in policy and commitments such as this country has never undertaken before? In such a case would it not be proper that the general policy underlying it should be discussed before there is any decision on the part of the Government, or any commitment by signature?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is not entitled, so to speak, to come to a decision as to what will be in the pact. The pact is not yet available and is not yet signed. When it is, it will be for the House of Commons to make up its mind whether it is a good step or whether it is not.

Mr. Thurtle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great bulk of the people of this country want this pact signed, and signed as quickly as possible?

Mr. Morrison: As I say, the pact does not yet exist, but I think with my hon. Friend that the broad development of public opinion would not be adverse to the general principles, which have been discussed in the public Press.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate, on the question of Business for next week, the North Atlantic Pact.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear a matter of Parliamentary procedure of some importance? Do I understand him to say that treaties are subject to discussion by this House? Is it not the case, has it not always been the case with successive Governments, that the Government have

responsibility for signing a treaty and do not put it to the House before it is signed?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I sa—I certainly did not wish to say—anything inconsistent with what the noble Lord has said. My recollection is that ever since the first Labour Government, at any rate, it has been an established principle that the responsibility for signing a treaty or for not signing it is that of the Government of the day, unless there is such doubt about it that they wish to have Parliamentary discussion in advance. However, it is also the case that, thereafter, it is open for the House to refuse to ratify the agreement which is reached.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Reverting to the question of the election to the European Council, apart from the question of expediency or Government policy, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a matter of definite principle here in which all parties in this House are very greatly interested? Will he reconsider whether——

Mr. Speaker: This has nothing to do with the Business for next week.

Mr. Granville: I was trying to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider his decision and have a Debate on this matter, so that the Government may know the opinions of all parties in the House.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think so. I think it is quite premature.

Mr. Scollan: As we have had a speech by the Leader of the Opposition suggesting more than one day to discuss the Supplementary Estimates, will my right hon. Friend be good enough to see that the days on which they are discussed are consecutive days, and are not spread over two or three weeks, and that after an opening statement from the Front Bench on this side and a statement from the Front Bench on the other side the back benchers are left the rest of the time?

Mr. Morrison: I see my hon. Friend's point, but I doubt whether in this particular instance it would be practicable to meet it. I have not made a concession of anything to the Opposition. It must always be remembered that subjects taken for discussion in Supply are under


the control of the Opposition, subject to particular days; and it is important that that historic right of the Opposition should be maintained.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Would the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the Coast Protection Bill will be debated on Second Reading?

Mr. Morrison: I think it has been dealt with by another place, but I am not in a position to say when it will be considered here.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In relation to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) a little while ago, may I ask if his answer was intended to convey that any pact which the Foreign Secretary signs will not be operative until after the treaty has been ratified by a vote of the House of Commons?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think it is wise to go too far into detail about this. If the pact is signed, that will bind the Government. On the other hand, in certain cases where there are differences of opinion, the House has the undoubted right thereafter to cut in with a Motion or declaration that the Government should not have done it, in which case the Government would be in some difficulty.

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend will agree, will he not, that there is all the difference in the world between a treaty which is expressly made subject to ratification by the House and a treaty which is not so made? What I am asking my right hon. Friend to say is, whether his answer before was intended to convey that the treaty would be signed only subject to such ratification—or whether he was not saying that. May I have an answer?

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: In view of the publicity which has been given to the question of Purchase Tax, and the effect on small traders can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present his Budget to the House?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 106.

Division No. 47.]
AYES
[3.48 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Carmichael), James
Farthing, W J


Albu, A. H
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fernyhough, E


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Chamberlain, R A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Istington, E.)


Alien, A C (Bosworth)
Champion, A J
Follick, M.


Alpass, J H
Chater, D.
Foot, M M


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Cobb, F A.
Forman, J. C.


Attewell, H C
Cocks, F S
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T N


Attlee, Rt. Hon C. R
Coldrick, W
Gallacher, W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Collick, P
Ganley, Mrs C. S


Ayles, W H.
Collindridge, F.
Gibson, C W


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Colman, Miss G. M
Glanville, J. E (Consett)


Bacon, Miss A
Cooper, G
Gordon-Walker, P C


Balfour, A
Corbet, Mrs F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Granville, E (Eye)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J.
Corlett, Dr J.
Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)


Barstow, P G
Crawley, A
Guy. W. H


Barton, C
Cullen, Miss
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Battley, J. R
Daines, P
Hall, Rt Hon Glenvil


Bechervaise, A E
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hamilton, Lieut-Col R


Bellenger, Rt Hon. F. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hardy, E. A.


Benson, G
Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S.W.)
Hastings, Dr Somerville


Berry, H
Deer, G.
Henderson, Rt Hn A (Kingswinford)


Bevan, Rt Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dodds, N. N
Herbison, Miss M


Binns, J
Driberg, T E. N
Holman, P


Blackburn, A R
Dumpleton, C W
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Blyton, W R
Dye, S
Horabin, T L


Bowen, R
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
Hoy, J.


Braddock, Mrs E M. (L'pl Exch'ge)
Edelman, M
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Bramall, E A
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)


Brook, D (Halifax)
Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Hughes, H, D (W'Iverh'pton, W.)


Bruce, Maj. D W T.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Burke. W A
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)
Ewart, R.
Janner, B.


Callaghan, James
Fairhurst, F.
Jay, D. P T.




Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Moyle, A.
Stross, Dr. B.


Jenkins, R H
Nally, W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Naylor, T. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Neal, H (Claycross)
Sylvester, G. O.


Keenan, W
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Symonds, A. L.


Kendall, W D
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Kenyon, C
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)


Key, Rt. Hon C W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)


King, E. M.
Oliver, G H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, I O (Wrekin)


Kinley, J
Parker, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lang, G.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Tiffany, S.


Lawson, Rt Hon. J. J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Titterington, M. F


Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Pearson, A.
Tolley, L.


Leslie, J R.
Pearl, T. F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Levy, B W.
Piratin, P.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Lewis, J (Bolton)
Popplewell, E.
Usborne, Henry


Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Pritt, D. N.
Viant, S. P.


Lipson, D. L.
Proctor, W. T.
Walkden, E.


Lipton, Lt.-Col, M.
Pryde, D. J.
Walker, G. H.


Longden, F.
Randall, H. E.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Lyne, A. W.
Ranger, J.
Warbey, W. N.


McAdam, W.
Reeves, J.
Watson, W. M.


McGovern, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rhodes, H.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


McKinlay, A. S.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, A.
West, D. G.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wigg, George


Mallalieu, J P. W. (Huddersfield)
Scollan, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mann, Mrs J.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Segal, Dr S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sharp, Granville
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Shurmer, P.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Medland, H. M.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Mellish, R. J
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Willis, E.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Skinnard, F. W
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)
Woods, G. S.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Smith, S H. (Hull, S.W.)
Yates, V. F.


Monslow, W
Snow, J. W
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Morgan, Dr H. B.
Solley, L J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Morley, R
Sorensen, R. W.



Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Sparks, J. A.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Pickthorn, K.


Baxter, A. B.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Prescott, Stanley


Bennett, Sir P.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Birch, Nigel
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V


Boothby, R.
Hurd, A.
Renton, D.


Bossom, A C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bower, N.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Robinson, Roland


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Keeling, E H.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lambert, Hon, G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Snadden, W. M


Challen, C
Langford-Holt, J.
Spearman, A. C. M


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Col. R, S.
Lennex-Boyd, A. T
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Studholme, H. G


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Linstead, H. N.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt John E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Teeling, William


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


De la Bère, R
Low, A. R. W
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Dower, Col A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macdonald Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Duthie, W S
Marlowe, A A H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, S. H (Sutton)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr E. L.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wiiloughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Gridley, Sir A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V
Osborne, C
Colonel Wheatley and


Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Mr Wingfield Digby.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.0 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Mr. Speaker, before I move the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to seek your guidance on the general scope of the Debate. The Bill is, of course, one which specifically sanctions certain public works, and on a narrow interpretation perhaps the Debate could be so confined. Nevertheless, the public works are related to the coming Festival of Britain, 1951, and I have a feeling that the House, including myself, would wish to discuss the broad lines upon which the Festival is to be conducted, in some relation to the particular proposals of this Bill and with some width of debate. I wonder if you could give any indication to the House whether or not that would be permissible from the point of view of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: I hold the same view as the right hon. Gentleman. I regard this as a machinery Bill for the Festival of Britain, and I should have thought this was a suitable opportunity to discuss anything to do with the Exhibition and that Festival.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am obliged, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As the House is aware, last spring the Government set up the Festival Council which had placed upon it the task of supervising the arrangements for the Festival of Britain, 1951. We thought it right to appoint to that Council a number of hon. Members representative of both sides of this House, and others with special qualifications in the fields of administration, science and the arts, under the chairmanship of General Lord Ismay. One of the first big tasks of the Council was to advise what sort of main Exhibition should be held in 1951 and where it should be located in view of the many economic and other difficulties of the country.
On account of the needs of the British Industries Fair and the export drive the Government were unable to agree that

the Festival should use Earls Court and Olympia; and owing to shortages of labour and of steel and other materials it also proved impossible to meet the cost in resources of staging a big exhibition in Hyde Park or Battersea Park, quite apart from the objection to the use of so much public open space for such a purpose. Wembley, the Crystal Palace, and other sites were also looked at and found wanting. The idea of finding house-room for the Exhibition in the museum quarter of South Kensington proved impracticable upon examination.
After long and anxious scrutiny the Festival Council came to the conclusion that, with all its drawbacks, the South Bank site between County Hall and Waterloo Road was the only one which was at once sufficiently spectacular, central, and in harmony with the theme of a new Britain springing from the battered fabric of the old, to be acceptable. The South Bank offered a site of 30 acres in the heart of London and promised that much of the work and all the goodwill put into 1951 would serve an enduring purpose in promoting the overdue development of the south side of the river.
I am glad that the Festival Council came to this wise conclusion. Looking at it from a different angle, it was becoming urgent for the sake of London and its people that we should make a real start on the south side redevelopment. We are doing it. There will be great difficulties, but we shall get over them, and the south side will begin to be real and to flourish. I can picture this new south side after the Festival is over. There will be a fine new concert hall, with restaurants and other amenities, right on the river bank. I shall be very glad of that, because it so happens that during the time I myself was Leader of the London County Council I finally settled with the advice of the Council's valuers the negotiations with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purchase of a large proportion of this South Bank land, and had a hand, with others, in settling the terms. The whole idea was to get an opening on the South Bank as the beginning of a redevelopment, which I am sure will grow as the years go along. Unless we can make a beginning we might be talking about the South Bank for 50 years to come.
The London County Council will start building the concert hall, which is their responsibility, in a few weeks' time, and it should be ready, given a big effort by everybody concerned, early in 1951. Then there will be great Government offices: not dead single-purpose buildings, as some critics have pictured them, but buildings arranged with conference halls and other amenities, which I trust will be available for public use. There will also be the National Theatre, a separate Measure for which has just been before the House. Bigger and better water buses, running more frequently than the experimental service we saw last summer, will serve the South Bank pier and bring it pleasantly and conveniently into touch with other points in the heart of the metropolis.
The whole of this area is being laid out by one supervising architect—one of the best we have in this country—Dr. Charles Holden. The traffic improvements we are discussing today will serve a purpose and have a value in the great new development of the South Bank after the 1951 Festival of Britain is over. We hope that that Festival will break down once for all the old unreasoning prejudice which the north side of the river has had against the south side, with the consequence, of course, that the outlook from the north side has been less pleasant than the outlook from the south side. We hope that that prejudice will be broken down, and that the crowded working population of the north side will in years to come cross with relief to the modern amenities and spacious beauty of the re-developed South Bank.
From a traffic standpoint, the area round the South Bank site is really the true centre of London. Mean development and narrow streets have largely robbed it of its natural function. But with the focal attraction of the Exhibition and the traffic facilities of which this Bill provides a first instalment, we may help it to enter into its natural inheritance. It cannot be denied that an exhibition in the centre of London, attracting large crowds, will create a severe traffic problem. I do not wish to disguise that from the House. The police will be faced with a stiff job in controlling and regulating the flow of traffic so as to reduce congestion. This

Bill therefore seeks powers to enable the London County Council and the British Transport Commission to carry out a number of works designed to facilitate traffic moving to, from and round the South Bank site, although it may be that a traffic problem will still remain.
The provisions of this Bill represent the absolute minimum which the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and the British Transport Commission consider to be necessary to handle the additional traffic. It is based on the report of an informal working party which. I appointed representative of the Ministry of Transport, the other Government Departments concerned, the London County Council, the Metropolitan Police, the British Transport Commission and the Festival of Britain authorities, and is an agreed scheme so far as all those responsible authorities are concerned The proposed Exhibition traffic arrangements are based on their recommendations, and the powers sought in the Bill are required to carry some of those recommendations into effect. The remainder can be carried out under existing powers
I should like at this point to ask the House to spare a tear of sympathy for that hard-pressed body of men, the Metropolitan Police. The existing congestion of the Metropolis imposes on them a daily and hourly burden almost as great as they can bear, and it is no light matter for a man who holds the responsibility of Commissioner of Police for keeping London's traffic running to face the prospect of crowds of additional sightseers milling about the streets for several months on end, and bands of visitors trooping to and from an exhibition sited in the heart of London. Indeed, I admit that I had to reason considerably with the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police to persuade them that such risks to the ordinary circulation ought to be accented at all. I assured them that the Government would not only see that the traffic improvements in this Bill were put through to relieve the situation but would also use every effort to secure the co-operation of the public in coping with the congestion which extra visitors and traffic in 1951 will inevitably bring.
I am sure the House will support the Government of the day in ensuring that everything that can be done is done to


assist the police in what, for them, must be a burdensome and trying business. It will be necessary for the Government at that time, and for the traffic authorities of London and elsewhere, to seek the good will and co-operation of the citizens moving about London so that traffic can be kept to the minimum. I am sure that if we patiently explain matters to them, we shall get that customary co-operation of the citizens for their common convenience in the end.
In planning the arrangements account was taken of the estimates made by the Exhibition authorities that the average daily attendance was likely to be about 50,000, rising to 100,000 at week-ends and Bank Holidays. All this movement of people will be additional to the normal loads carried by public passenger transport, and it would saturate the existing facilities if nothing were done to expand them. For example, we expect that a good many people visiting the Exhibition will arrive at or depart from Charing Cross and Waterloo Underground stations, which already handle 120,000 and 100,000 people a day, respectively.
Before dealing with the specific provisions of the Bill, I shall outline the general traffic arrangements calculated to ease the situation. More information about traffic in detail will be given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who is more competent to deal with that aspect of the matter. If at that point I am not in the House, it is because I have an engagement which may make it necessary for me not to be here, and I take this opportunity of making my apologies to the House. The Exhibition site is bounded by the River Thames, Waterloo Road, York Road and the County Hall Buildings. The traffic arrangements, of which the new works are an integral part, contemplate that visitors shall reach the Exhibition by six different means of approach: (a), by foot bridges over the Thames from Charing Cross Underground Station and over York Road from Waterloo main line station; (b), by direct escalator from Waterloo Underground stations; (c), by river services setting down at piers, giving direct access to the Exhibition; (d), by buses setting down near York Road; (e), by trams setting down in Westminster Bridge Road, Waterloo Road and Lambeth Palace Road, and (f), by motor cars

and taxis, but not coaches, setting down at selected points within walking distance.
The Ministry of Transport are satisfied that public and private transport using these approaches should be able to bring to the Exhibition as many visitors as the Exhibition can accommodate. The Exhibition will not open in the morning until the business traffic rush is over; we shall avoid the morning peak hour by seeing that the timing is such that there will not be competition between people going to work and people going to the Exhibition. The problem of preventing the overloading of public transport services during the evening peak hours will be difficult, but so far as possible special attractions at the Exhibition will be so arranged that large numbers of people do not leave at the height of the traffic rush.
The works in connection with the traffic arrangements I have outlined are estimated to cost not more than £2 million. If the House approves, so much of this expenditure as is for Exhibition purposes only will attract special grant from the Exchequer. A large proportion of the work has a continuing value, and it would in any case have been required at a later period. It will help to promote easier traffic movements after the Exhibition has closed. Some of the road improvements can be carried out by the London County Council under existing statutory powers. These include roundabout traffic schemes at both ends of York Road and the widening of York Road to 70 feet to take four lines of traffic along the Exhibition frontage.
Exhibition traffic may create difficulties, not only in the immediate vicinity of the site, but also north of the Thames. Accordingly, the opportunity will be taken to press on with the plan for the enlargement of the central island in Parliament Square by taking in part of the grassed area on which the Lincoln memorial and the Buxton fountain stand. I think the plan was accepted in principle earlier on by the local authorities, and possibly by the Government of the day. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is appointing a consulting architect to advise on the layout of the Square.
I will now turn to the Clauses of the Bill, with which the Minister of Trans-


port will deal in more detail. Clause I and the First Schedule seek powers for the carrying out of a number of works by either the London County Council or the British Transport Commission. First, there are the new foot bridges, one from Northumberland Avenue across the river, parallel with Hungerford Bridge and giving direct access to the Exhibition site, and a second, starting in the concourse or main hall of Waterloo main line station, crossing York Road and again taking people direct to the Exhibition. The cost of these bridges is estimated to be £130,000. Then there is an extension over York Road of the existing Hungerford foot bridge. At present, it ends shortly after it has reached the South Bank. The cost of this will be about £28,000, and is work No. 4, in the First Schedule. There is also provision for landing stages to be constructed on the new river wall, giving access to the new Exhibition site. We are hoping that these river travelling facilities will provide increased transport facilities and will add an amenity to London which has long been urged by the junior Burgess of Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert).
There are provisions in Clause 1 (1, c) for the railway works which I have very shortly indicated, and the cost of these is estimated to be about £150,000 for Charing Cross and £300,000 for Waterloo Undergrounds, respectively. There is provision for the re-laying of the tramways at Westminster Bridge Road and York Road because of the roundabout. It is a great pity this has to be done, because most Londoners nowadays are looking forward to the ending of the London tramways and their replacement by omnibuses. We went into this very thoroughly to see whether anything could be done to accelerate the changeover so that the resiting of the tramways round the roundabout would not be necessary. The removal of the tramways would have eased the traffic problem anyway. However, it could not be done by that time. It is a pity. Still, that will come some day, and London will be a tramless city. Whether the tramways will be missed by the munipical politicians, I do not know. Since well before 1907 London's tramways have been a source of political excitement which only terminated some time after the passage

of the London Passenger Transport Bill, when I as Minister of Transport, having fought for the people's trams under the county council for many years, finally got through an Act of Parliament which took them over and socialised them under a public corporation. The cost of the tramway changes will be about £46,000.
There are some other provisions which enable land to be acquired, and the London County Council under their normal powers and procedure will rehouse the householders disturbed. I think they will be taken care of. We shall do our very best to secure the reinstatement somewhere else of shopkeepers and others who are disturbed. There are also powers under Clause 4 to close certain streets. I have appealed to the county council and the Boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark to get their citizens together, to do all the cleaning up they can in the boroughs in various modest ways so that visitors will get a good impression of the district. That should not require much money, and a good deal of the work can be done voluntarily.
I have never forgotten that one of the first things the Borough of Bermondsey did under the inspiration of the late Dr. and Mrs. Salter after the First World War was to institute a beautification and public amenities committee which, in that very poor and not too attractive borough—from a functional point of view, though it has its attractions, and I lived in the borough when I was first married—did really fine work with window boxes, flowers, hedges, the planting of trees and keeping things clean, thus greatly improving the attractiveness of the borough. I am sure that the borough councils of Southwark and Lambeth and the county council will be able to work together with that object and by these methods improve things generally.
If hopeless congestion of streets leading to and in the vicinity of the Exhibition is to be avoided, it is essential that there shall be no parking of cars or coaches in the streets. It is therefore proposed that the London County Council should be authorised to provide, maintain and manage temporary car parks for private cars and for motor coaches and to acquire land and impose charges and make by-laws governing the use of parking places. One of the parking sites


for coaches is at Clapham Common near the tube stations, where facilities can be provided especially for people coming from the south, south-east and south-west. We shall provide lavatory accommodation and so on for the convenience of the public. There is a possibility that we might have to use a part of the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park in Southwark which was kindly presented to the county council some years ago by the late Lord Rothermere, but we do not want to do that and shall not do so if we can make other arrangements.
I shall not go into too much detail about the provisions of the various Clauses because, as I said, the Minister of Transport is particularly competent to deal with them. A considerable amount of the work, perhaps a half, will have a permanent value and will not attract grant. There are also a number of road improvement schemes towards the cost of which only normal Road Fund grants will be made in so far as they are of general traffic value. As I have already indicated to the House, the Bill is only in part a Measure connected with the actual content of the Festival of Britain. It is mainly concerned with improving the traffic facilities of Central London, and many of these improvements would have been necessary in any case, although some of them might have been deferred and others might have taken a rather different form had the South Bank site not been chosen for the main Festival of Britain Exhibition.
In conclusion, I shall deal briefly with some of the objections which may be raised by critics. It may be said that this is no time to devote national resources even on this scale to amenities such as the Festival, though the scale in itself is fairly modest. I would reply that the Government will be proud if the Festival uplifts the spirit and stimulates the imagination of the British people after such a long spell of danger and austerity. Democracy cannot flourish except by free men and women knowing and understanding what they are striving and struggling for, and it would be shortsighted, even in economic terms, to underestimate the contribution which such a long delayed stimulus as this might give to our own national effort and how much it may contribute to our tourist and export earnings and our prestige and status among the nations of the world.

This is neither an abstract nor a negligible consideration. Britain must keep in the forefront or go under, and we look to the Festival as something which will play a powerful part in keeping Britain in the forefront, just as its predecessor in 1851 contributed so largely to keeping us in the forefront in the 19th century.
It may also be objected that a certain number of buildings are being torn down and their occupants are having to be provided with or are having to find fresh accommodation at a time when accommodation is so tight. That is certainly regrettable, but if we are ever to rebuild the Metropolis, we must start somewhere, and there is no spot where redevelopment will give so big and lasting a dividend as the redevelopment of the South Bank without which traffic can no longer flow smoothly, and accommodation for the necessities of Government and of business can no longer be found sites in the centre. I have myself inquired into the arrangements for accommodating dwellers and shopkeepers displaced from the site, and I am satisfied that the London County Council are doing all they reasonably can to ease the situation.
Objection may also be made against the character which the arrangements for the Festival are taking. It would not be in order to discuss and defend these full arrangements here, but the House will be aware that everything of importance that is done in connection with the Festival comes under the review of the Festival Council which, as I have already mentioned, is representative of leading members of all the principal political parties; and I am assured that there is no important difference of opinion among the eminent men and women who are supervising the arrangements and who represent a wealth and variety of experience which has rarely been found on any single committee. What I have said about the Great Britain Committee can also be said about the Scottish Committee and the Committees for Wales and Northern Ireland. No one would claim that the Festival arrangements are the best that we could have produced if our resources had been unlimited, but I am satisfied that they represent a very creditable and imaginative triumph over the extreme narrowness of the resources to which we have unfortunately had to confine the Festival Council.
Then it may be urged that more money should be spent in other parts of the country and less in London. Those who examine the full Festival arrangements will appreciate, however, that never before in this country or in any other has a national display been so widely and on the whole fairly distributed as between different parts of the country, instead of being monopolised by the capital.
I hope therefore that this Measure will be regarded not only as non-contentious but as one to which all parties in the House will wish to add their equal endorsement. The works provided in it will be the key to the enjoyment by vast numbers of people of a spectacle which we hope and believe will kindle the imagination of the nation and will convince the world as surely of our leadership in peace as the Battle of Britain convinced it of our unconquerable spirit in war. But beyond that, when the dust of 1951 has subsided, this will, we may hope, represent the first instalment of a series of imaginative and well planned measures which will transform the centre of our capital city into something more beautiful, more convenient and less inefficient for its purpose than it is today.
In view of the provisions of the Bill which I have explained, and the purpose of this Measure, I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading, and it would be pleasant if today we were unanimous in giving that Second Reading.

Mr. Benn Levy: Would it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to give a rough sketch—I know it could be no more than that—of what the Exhibition is to exhibit and what festivities the Festival is to comprise?

Mr. Morrison: I should not like to enter on a rather extensive survey at this stage, nor do I know how far it would be right for me to go, but if questions should be put and particular matters raised in the Debate, the Minister of Transport will be happy to get the information and to pass it on to the House.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think the House will cordially re-echo the sentiments with which the right hon. Gentleman closed

his speech, namely, that we should as far as we can give this Bill a unanimous blessing without committing ourselves to more than approval of its principles and purposes, and reserving to ourselves the right to make at later stages suggestions for the improvement of the machinery to meet the technical points and difficulties which arise from it.
I am sure that the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, welcomed the Ruling of your predecessor in the Chair when he said that this Debate should be allowed latitude to range over the whole question of the Festival because, quite clearly, we are unable to judge in any sense the value or necessity of the works which are outlined in this Bill, unless we have some idea in our own minds as to whether the Festival which they are to render possible is a worthy object in itself. As this is the first opportunity the House has had of discussing the question, it is a good thing that we are allowed a certain latitude. So far, we have only had some statements made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us, and by other persons, about what is proposed for this Festival, and we have been told in the past that certain steps have been taken to which he referred, namely that a Council for the Festival has been set up under Lord Ismay. On that Council we on this side of the House are represented by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel W. Elliot) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler).
We are told that one of the purposes of this Festival is to commemorate the Great Exhibition of 1851. I, for one, welcome this temporary lapse of hon. Gentlemen opposite into Victorian respectability. We may also commend this desire on their part to acknowledge some of the achievements of the past; it is certainly a relief from their constant harpings upon its imperfections. I can well imagine, as the right hon. Gentleman said, some people being dubious about the wisdom of this proposal at a time when our own economy is so straitened, when just recently we have been presented with Supplementary Estimates of a truly formidable magnitude, and also at a time when we are, to put it frankly, so dependent upon


financial aid from overseas. However, I think we are wise to proceed with this project and to do our best to make it a success. It should, if successful, result in a net gain to our economy and, therefore, to the reconstruction of Europe which is the purpose of that generous aid from overseas to which I have referred.
On the financial side we can take some comfort from the fact that the 1851 Exhibition resulted in a surplus of £186,000, and when we consider the widespread nature of this Festival, which is to be held not only in London but in all the other main parts of the Kingdom, we are quite entitled to anticipate a stimulus to our trade and a welcome accretion of foreign currency. There has also to be borne in mind, in weighing up the economic side of it, that much of the proposed work—the clearing of the proposed site on the South Bank, the housing estate which is to be used as the Architectural and Town Planning Exhibition—would have to be undertaken anyhow, and will be of permanent value to the community.
Those are the material considerations. There is also a value imponderable but, no doubt, immense, in a sincere and worthy demonstration of our way of life at this time. We have come through much affliction, we are still suffering from troubles of many kinds, including right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we may well think that by 1951, some of these afflictions may have disappeared and others will be at least mitigated, and a signal, if it can be set, of the enduring vitality and resource of the people of these islands may be an encouragement to free men everywhere with effects spreading far beyond our own shores.
Of course it is clear that this Exhibition cannot be on the scale of the 1851 Exhibition in Hyde Park, with its bewildering abundance and variety of exhibits of arts and crafts from all over the world. I have just been looking in the Library of the House at the three or four large volumes of the catalogue of that Exhibition. Any hon. Member who cares to look at it will be amazed and bewildered by the almost heterogeneous collection of articles described in that catalogue. The extent of the site proposed for this one is some 27 acres,

and that is to include the proposed concert hall and its approaches. This restricted area for the Exhibition involves two consequences to my mind. The first is that we must make up for what we lack in quantity by very high quality. The limitations of space and money imposed upon us should be a stimulus to ingenuity, to design and to selection. The second consequence is the importance of securing co-operation between the central Exhibition and complementary expositions in other parts of London and, indeed, in all parts of the United Kingdom. I am glad to see that those are the lines on which it is proposed to proceed.
The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, with pardonable patriotism, stressed the London side of this Exhibition, but we should remember that it is the Festival of Britain and that Britain is a very varied country. I hope that it will be found possible to let every region and every separate culture which exists in our island have full scope for making its contribution to the grand design. I speak not only of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where there are distinct cultures, but of other parts of England where people have contributions to make to a true picture of Britain which cannot be made by London alone.
I should like to say a few words upon the question of time. The year 1951 seems a long way ahead, but in my view, forming the best judgment I can of what is involved, the time for the work that has to be done is very short. In my experience these enterprises generally start at too leisurely a pace, and the common result is a rush and scurry at the end of the time. The Council and the Government should have before them the proverbial words, "It is later than you think," or, if they prefer something more poetical, the lines of Andrew Marvell:
But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer in particular. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what will be one of the great problems of running this Exhibition, namely the traffic that it will create in our already crowded streets. I think he dealt with that subject in a way which makes it unnecessary for me to add what I had


intended to say. I am convinced from what he said that this matter has been considered, and certainly it would be the wish of hon. Members in all parts of the House to give every assistance to the Metropolitan Police in their undoubtedly difficult task of securing free access to the Exhibition. I will say nothing more on that at the moment.
Another point which, it occurs to me, will be one of great difficulty is the question of accommodation for visitors to London. This Exhibition is bound to attract great numbers of people not only from our own country but from overseas, and much of the great advantage of this central site which we are proposing to use for the Exhibition will be lost if it is not, in fact, central in relation to where people have to sleep and eat. I think the Government can help in this matter if they really try, and I suggest that there should be now a close and rigorous survey of the hotels, boarding houses and hostels still held under requisition by the Government. The object should be to release the very maximum possible of such accommodation, and to release it in good time to permit of its re-equipment, repair and redecoration where necessary. I am sure that this problem of accommodation in London will be most difficult, and it can be solved only if it is tackled early enough.
As to the works themselves, much of what is necessary can be done, no doubt, under existing powers, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, they will form a permanent part of the reconstruction of London. The clearing up of the South Bank between the County Hall and Waterloo Bridge will be a gain for all time, and I hope that when the County Council have completed their wall they will sometimes gaze across the river and contemplate the three and half miles of embankment constructed as long ágo as 1870 by the old Metropolitan Board of Works, with all their faults.
This is a hybrid Bill, I understand, and I presume it will go to a Select Committee where those whose rights are affected can appear and state their case in accordance with the procedure in this House. We have not before us the deposited plans and book of reference which are referred to in Clause 2 (3) of the Bill. Subsection (3) seems to deal with the

point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, the rehousing of persons displaced by the works, and it gives power to the Council to take certain lands in Lambeth for providing substituted sites for people who are displaced by the works. What I am not clear about is this: if these lands are taken for this purpose and persons are again displaced by this taking of lands, what is proposed to be done about them? I suppose the point has been thought of, and it may be that the answer would appear obvious if one had the book of reference and the deposited plans, but as we have not got them I should be glad of an assurance that this matter has been dealt with.
Then there is another little matter of detail to which I should like to get an answer—I do not mean today, but I should like it to be considered. It is quite obvious that the traffic induced by this Exhibition will require the provision of car parks. The parking position in London is always one of the major problems of its traffic. Clause 5 deals with the acquisition of sites for this purpose, but I see in Subsection (8, b) that if land is taken for this purpose
compensation shall be payable as it would be under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. …
I recollect that in the Section which applies, namely Section 2 of that Act, there is a proviso which states that if a man's land is taken for a period he should be paid the sort of rent that he could get for the land immediately before the land was taken. But there is also a proviso to the effect that in computing the rent, no account shall be taken of any appreciation in values due to the emergency, as it is there described—the emergency then being the war.
This looks very much like our old friend 1939 values. The House has, by consent, moved a long way from 1939 values. Indeed, towards the end of the war they were found to be unjust. Parliament first of all made provision for certain supplements to 1939 values, and recently in Parliament, at the instance of the Government, they resorted to another basis of value for compensation which is founded upon market value for existing use. In the cases of bombed sites there would be no development charge payable for rebuilding the houses. I hope this matter will be looked at and that this great enterprise, on which we are all


engaging with such good will, for this public purpose, will not be marred at the outset by any suggestion of unfair treatment of those who are affected by it.
I have little to say about the proposed works themselves. They all need a good deal of study, which they will no doubt receive in Committee, but I should like to make a suggestion about one or two of them. I see that it is proposed to widen the roundabout in Parliament Square. I do not know precisely what land is to be taken for that purpose, but I hope that it will be found possible to spare the row of trees at the far end of the Square, because all these patches of greenery in our City are very valuable and are much easier destroyed than replaced; if it is possible to effect the necessary purpose and still preserve the trees, may I put in a humble plea for their preservation?
I should think, as it is almost a domestic matter, that we in this House should all like to have some further particulars of what is proposed to be done in altering the junction of Bridge Street and Westminster Bridge. I see that that is one of the matters referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum as covered by existing powers. If the Minister of Transport could tell us what is proposed to be done there, I am sure that as it lies so close to this House itself, we should all be extremely interested.
The footbridges are, no doubt, necessary, and I hope that while they are being constructed it will be found possible to give a demonstration of some of the ingenuity displayed during the war by the Royal Engineers in throwing bridges across rivers in Germany and France. It might be found that the expense would be reduced and that some of the material could be put to good use after the need for temporary bridges has gone. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to make sure, though I have no doubt that his answer will be in the affirmative, that full account has been taken of the problems of navigation of the river. It is very important that we should not sacrifice or impair the livelihood of those who work on the river, in order to suit the convenience of landlubbers who are going to walk across dry shod.
These are the only remarks that I have to make on the Bill. I repeat that we shall do our best to make this exhibi-

tion a success and a worthy example to the country to which we all belong. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his exposition. Speaking for my hon. Friends as a whole, I can say that we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: No one can deny the importance and necessity of the Bill to which we are asked to give a Second Reading. The task, as set out in the Bill, indicates the very great problems that will be set for the Commissioner of Police. It is, in that respect, rather unfortunate that we should be obliged to choose a site in what is probably one of the most congested areas in London for traffic. That means, as the Bill shows, that a large expense is being incurred in alterations, and there is the possibility of the plans not developing exactly as we might wish.
Notwithstanding that little criticism, I am sure that the people of Southwark, Camberwell and Lambeth, and of South London generally, welcome the prospect of the Exhibition being held in their area. At the time of the 1851 Exhibition, South London was blessed with many open spaces. There were the Dog and Duck, Vauxhall Gardens, Bermondsey Park, the Temple of Flora and the Temple of Apollo. They were among the resorts of the people of that time. I compare that with the position today in Southwark; for the main point I wish to raise concerns Clause 5 (4) and (5).
My right hon. Friend has referred to the difficulty of finding suitable accommodation for the parking of motor cars. He referred to the Clause, and I was very glad to hear him say that, so far as the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park was concerned, he hoped there would be no necessity to take it over. I hope that before the Bill is passed we shall have assurances that the Ministry of Transport will allow the reference to the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park to be deleted from the Bill.
I would mention the history of this little park. It is called a park, but it is nothing more than a conventional recreation ground for the children. School children are taken there to play games and the whole area is restricted to something like 14 acres. A large pro-


portion of the ground is, of course, devoted to the building in the centre of the park, which houses the Imperial War Museum. I can picture the possibilities if this little piece of ground is taken over under the proposals of the Bill. If only a part of it is taken, the remaining part will stay in use as a playground. In view of the proximity of the car park there will then be a great danger to children. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to persuade the Minister of Transport to give further consideration to this matter.
I impress one aspect of this question upon my right hon. Friend, and that is that this park is named after the mother of the late Lord Rothermere and was presented to the London County Council as a memorial to his mother. A question of legality arises in my mind, although I have made no researches into the matter and my right hon. Friend may possibly know more about the legal aspect of it than I do. Whether there is a legal right or whether there is not a legal right, it does not seem to me quite the right thing that a memorial of this character should be turned aside from the original intention of the donor for the purpose merely of being converted into a place for the parking of motor cars. I would look upon it as a great infringement of the amenities of a borough which can boast of no more than a total of about 35 acres of open spaces.
My right hon. Friend will ask me what is the alternative? The answer would be that there are many areas in Southwark, thanks to Hitler when he passed by, which could provide accommodation, and they are to be found here and there over the borough. If there is any shortage of accommodation these sites might be used for that express purpose. I hope that this protest on my part against interference with the Geraldine Mary Harms-worth Park will have the effect of securing the removal of the reference in Clause 6. There is also the case of Clapham Common. The Minister has mentioned that it will be devoted to the parking of motor coaches, but I leave references to Clapham to other hon. Members.
That is all I wish to say now, except that I would like to be allowed to congratulate my right hon. Friend, with whom I have been associated for many

years in the progress of London. I congratulate him upon at least approaching a state of affairs on the South Bank of the Thames which has been one of the prominent objects of his policy for many years. He now finds himself in the position of being able to implement his policy. I have no doubt that in the years to come. when the Exhibition has run its course and is closed, he will be able to regard the South Bank of the Thames, the Shakespeare Theatre, the Exhibition Buildings and the improvements all along the South Bank, as his spiritual home.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: When the Lord President of the Council was telling the House the story of site-hunting, my mind naturally went back to the time when I was on the Ramsden Committee, to which the question of a permanent building for the British Industries Fair and the problem of an International Exhibition in 1951 were referred. We came to exactly the same conclusion. There were some optimists who thought it would be possible to beg the use of Hyde Park for the International Exhibition, but we told them there was no hope of that. Those of us who knew anything about these matters were certain that plenty of people in Parliament and in the London County Council would reject that proposition. Our conclusion was that the ideal site would be on the South Bank of the Thames.
Like the Lord President, I have worked in the Ministry of Supply. Looking out over the river in moments of contemplation, I was thoroughly ashamed at the ghastly sight which the view presented to us. That disgrace was frequently emphasised by my visits to international conferences in Paris, to a splendid building on the North side of the river from which can be seen its beautifully developed South side. I have always longed for the day when we should be able to tackle this problem, and I am in agreement, therefore, with the desirability of the site which has been chosen and on the value of the Festival itself.
I should like to read to the House two short sections from Cmd. Paper 6782, which was the report of our Committee in 1945. At the beginning we stated, in paragraph 3:
Our recommendations have been framed on the assumption that the present difficulties


in connection with transport, accommodation and the supply of labour and materials will, to a great extent, have disappeared by the time our recommendations, if accepted, are being put into effect. It is only on this basis that we have been able to frame a long-term (constructive policy which will achieve the primary object we have had in view in all our discussions, namely, the promotion of United Kingdom export trade in the post-war era.
I was not altogether happy about that, however, so towards the end, in paragraph 72, we emphasised these aspects:
We have made our recommendations purely on the merits and advantages of an Exhibition.
That was the 1951 International Exhibition.
It is realised that any such exhibition must result in considerable expenditure and the diversion of labour and materials at the expense of other urgent forms of post-war reconstruction. To justify the heavy expenditure of money and the large allocation of labour necessary to make an International Exhibition a success, it is essential that in the meanwhile there must have been adequate progress made in the provision of dwelling houses, schools and other public institutions already promised, and, in addition, sufficient industrial buildings of all classes provided to enable industry to function efficiently.
I feel bound to put on record that I have the same feeling about the modified Exhibition in 1951 as I had for the major project. We are still very much concerned with the question of housing. Let us presume that by 1951 the first stage will be well on the way to completion—and let us hope that we shall not be getting quite so many of the pitiful letters we receive from our constituents asking what we can do to help them to get houses. Even when we have completed the first stage, we are still faced with the second stage and the rehousing problem. In many of the great cities to which I go, just outside the shopping area there is a ring of decayed property which has to be rebuilt. In Birmingham we have half a dozen schemes to rebuild the decayed slum property which is close to the centre of the city. Those schemes have been postponed time after time until the people are beginning to feel that it is a case of the "never-never" land.
In addition to those problems, which are pressing very heavily upon us, the replacement of very many commercial and factory buildings needs to be undertaken as a result of the war. We get used to seeing these empty sites as we

wander about our big cities. Strangers call our attention to them and ask, "Are you ever going to build here?" We reply, "Oh, yes," and are then asked, "When?" We shake our heads. All sorts of projects are put before us for public buildings, hospitals, schools, social schemes, the administration of our public life and the rebuilding of public buildings to enable hotels to go back to their proper function. I am really getting tired of telling people, as I do sometimes, "Well, you will have to look after that; it will not happen in my lifetime."
I feel, therefore, that the plan before us is a very attractive scheme and I am entirely in agreement with it from all points of view. For prestige and for the uplift to which the Lord President referred, it will be very valuable. It will help in promoting exports and in bringing visitors with hard currency in their pockets to see us. It will start the rebirth of the South Bank. But while I am entirely in favour of these objects, I am a little uncomfortable, and should like some still fuller assurance, about the choice of the year 1951. It has been chosen for sentimental reasons. It was to be the year of the centenary of the Great Exhibition of 1851, and we thought it would be an excellent idea to show how we had recovered from the strains and stress of war by having a big Exhibition in 1951. That year, therefore, is a sentimental choice.
I want the fullest assurance that the Festival will not be at the expense of those other urgent national needs to which I have referred. The Lord President realises this difficulty, I am sure, but I felt that he was rather skating over the question. We are bound to have criticism and, no doubt, we can face up to it. The Lord President has had plenty of criticism and seems to thrive on it. We are sure to have plenty of criticism, as he knows, on the expense and labour which are being devoted to the preparation of the Exhibition. We should face the full effect of it now.
You have said, Mr. Speaker, that we can look at the whole problem and not just narrow it down to this particular detail upon which we are engaged. Supplementary Bills will be introduced and other expensive items will be put before us, and I do not want to be told, as sometimes we are, "You ought to have mentioned this question at the


beginning. You agreed to the principle and gave it an enthusiastic reception." I should like, therefore, to have from those who have studied the whole problem the fullest information about what it involves in terms of men, money and materials, and an assurance that the Festival will not cause the postponing to any great extent of any of the necessary schemes for which the country is waiting.

5.9 p.m.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I welcome most heartily this great and imaginative scheme for the Festival of 1951. I do not share the views or the fears of the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) about the harm it may cause. Of course, we shall get criticism. Nothing worth while has ever been achieved without criticism and certainly we on this side are used to it. In fact, I think we should seriously begin to wonder and ask ourselves whether we were doing the right thing if we did not get criticism. But I do not believe that the criticism of this scheme will be along the lines which have just been suggested, because the very fact that we shall bring in so much money and so many dollars from visitors and tourists will enable us to speed up all the building of which the hon. Member so rightly speaks.
This afternoon the Lord President of the Council naturally referred principally to the actual terms of the Bill. It would appear from the Bill that all roads lead to London, but that is not the position in regard to the Festival of Britain. Everywhere in the country when any local authority or any considerable group of the citizens want to do something by way of celebration, they will be encouraged to do so, and I am sure that it is intended that the encouragement given to them shall be in proportion to the size of their town or even village.
The Lord President talked of kindling the imagination of the nations of the world and I feel that the right kind of sentiment and emotion are among the most powerful of forces. If there is one thing around which sentiment is focused in this old London of ours, it is the British Houses of Parliament and British democracy, so I do not feel that any Festival would be adequate without some part of it taking place in close connection with the Palace of Westminster.
I wonder whether it would be possible to do something in Westminster Hall. Westminster Hall is one of the most famous, one of the oldest and one of the finest halls in the world. Everyone who visits this country and every British visitor to London is proud to be able to say that he has seen Westminster Hall. Since it was built, Westminster Hall has seen the growth of the Great British democracy which is represented by Parliament today. It is one of the most spectacular growths in the history of the world and something of which we have a right to be very proud, because our British democracy has grown out of the inherent characteristic of the freedom loving people. That is why we have a finer democracy, a more complete democracy than any other country in the world, except, possibly, New Zealand or Australia, who not only are first cousins, but whose forefathers not very long ago were British people.
The British tradition is a very great tradition and our democracy which governs Parliament today has grown up through many dramatic phases from Norman times, or at least from the signing of Magna Charta. It would be difficult to have a pageant, but I am wondering if it would be possible to have a diorama of scenes of history depicted in Westminster Hall. I daresay many hon. Members do not know what a diorama is. I did not know what it was called until yesterday afternoon, although I have seen one. A diorama shows models which look absolutely lifelike.
Possibly other hon. Members have seen the diorama in the Science Museum showing the history of British transport. If the Lord President has not seen it, he ought to see it. It shows lifelike models from the oldest type of farm cart to the latest train, or road vehicle. Why should we not have something of that kind dating from Magna Charta and going through British history, showing the fall of Charles I and showing how our democracy really started to be built after his death, and its growth through the Reform Bill to modern times, when we have a comprehensive franchise and a completely democratic government? In the last scene it could show an actual sitting of the House of Commons and give some pictorial display of the way in which the House carries on from day


to day, which is something everyone wants to know.
The new Chamber will be opened by the time the Exhibition is held and the Exhibition will take place, in part, during the Recess. The Exhibition is to be built on war shattered Britain and is to picture the new Britain. What could be more apposite and dramatic than the destruction of the old Chamber and a new Chamber built on its foundations? We hope that the new Chamber will see no more wars, but that in it new legislation benefiting not only democratic Britain but the whole world, will be passed. Why should there not be an opportunity during the Recess for the visitors to the 1951 Festival to see our new Chamber, which is the symbol of one of the most dramatic things that has ever happened? Let us not forget that, although our Chamber was destroyed during the war, Parliament carried on. It carried on with the business of winning the war for democracy and freedom.
All that time, now and continuously, Parliament has been and is watched over by the most famous broadcaster in the world, Big Ben. In all parts of the world, particularly in the occupied countries during the war, people sat in cellars or in garrets risking their lives to hear a message of hope coming daily from Britain heralded by the chimes of Big Ben. This great tradition, which catches the imagination of everyone who visits this country, could be brought home to our guests during the Exhibition. I know it will mean a lot of organisation and, of course, only a tithe of the great numbers who see the Exhibition could possibly see it, but would not it be well worth while to build up scenes in Westminster Hall showing the growth of our democracy? Let people pass through there whenever possible to see the new Chamber, and let as many people as possible who come to visit our Festival and Exhibition go away with the living memory of how we really do carry on British Government for democracy and freedom.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: As I am the only Member in the Chamber at the

moment who is on the Council of the Festival, I do not think it would be out of place for me to say a word. Perhaps also, I might speak, in a personal sense, because I was born in South London and I was at school for 11 years in Bermondsey. I have very vivid remembrances of the rakish roofs and of the chimney-dotted land of South London, which has had very little chance compared with the West and the North. I feel in miniature what the Lord President feels so very strongly about the meaning of this for South London. It is a tremendous opportunity.
The hope of this Exhibition is that it will unite what is permanent with what is to some extent ad hoc for the Festival. It is very fortunate that a large part of the works are to remain for the glory of South London. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) was somewhat critical. It is difficult at any time in history to say that one should or should not do a thing. It is a question of balance. It was decided to build the Albert Hall—though perhaps I had better not mention that—but the old Queen's Hall for instance at a time when there were appalling slums in London. That has always been a difficulty. I can think of a large number of black-listed schools which I condemned 15 years ago and which are still there. Theoretically one ought not to touch another concert hall until those schools have been put right. But we must keep a sense of perspective.
This is not only a transport and traffic Bill. This is a Bill dealing with something more than bread and circuses. Perhaps it is time a word was said—the Lord President referred to it but he had to deal more specifically with the Bill itself—about the main aim of the Festival. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) put a question to the Lord President. As I understand it, from our terms of reference on the Council, we are concerned mainly with the arts and sciences. We are concerned with industrial design as well, but primarily with the arts; music, the ballet, the theatre, films, books, galleries and museums all over the country. Anyone who has read T. S. Eliot's new book will remember how he stresses all the way through the regional cultures of Britain and, as the right hon. Gentleman who led for the Opposition said, those are


among the precious parts of the whole Exhibition.
We hope that Britain will literally come alive during these months of 1951 and the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) will, I am sure, be welcomed by the Council. It is precisely that sort of suggestion which is being put up; I am not sure that something like it has not already been suggested. There is no limit to what can be made use of in 1951. I do not think that I am giving away any sort of confidential information when I say that we hope that every gallery and museum in the country will present its wares from the local point of view. If Norfolk, or Yorkshire, or Lancashire, has a famous collection, or if a particular collection in Birmingham or Liverpool is famous, we hope that it will not only be on exhibition but that every picture by the same artist, every work by the same composer, and every book, and so forth, will be brought in the area, so that the whole of that region, with its cultural life, will be literally on show.
This is a tremendous task in which the labours of literally hundreds and perhaps thousands of people will be employed—and when I say labours I mean a great deal of it will be voluntary labour—before this Exhibition is finished. It is an interesting example of the Government of the day, whom I congratulate on having the imaginative conception to do it, literally releasing the energies of the people to show their wares. I give one example. I happen to be chairman of the National Book League. We have a series of exhibitions normally in Albemarle Street. We had a beautiful one of French books not long ago. I am certain that we shall put our case very strongly to have not only a series of the very best exhibitions possible during those months, but also that book exhibitions will take place all over the country to show the world the skill and craftsmanship which still exists in this land. It will be the same for all the arts. I only happen to mention books because I am more familiar with it. I do not know whether that gives the hon. Member for Eton and Slough any wider or clearer view.
It is not for me to say in detail what the Council will say in the future about more specific examples of the Exhibition.

What I am saying is that it is definitely to cover the whole sphere of the arts. It is not meant to be an exhibition of industry qua industry. That is quite definite and when the Lord President made his first announcement in this Chamber, he made that point very clear. The exact presentation, the way this is to be done, apart from the Exhibition in London which is of course the major exhibition, is not for me to say at the present moment. As I picture it however there will be the Edinburgh Festival of that year, there will be the Aldeburgh Festival and the Cheltenham and other festivals but in a sense they will be super festivals in that particular year. In other words, they will all go on but will have a very special responsibility during that year, partly because we hope to bring large sections of the people of the world here, and the tourist traffic will be one of the material rewards, apart from lifting the spirits of the people of this country.
I hope that some step will be taken to deal with the hotels, and the question of eating and drinking. I am rather terrified of bringing a large number of people here from that point of view. I think they will see the best of our arts and science and design, and let us not under-estimate the renaissance in music and ballet, if not in certain of the other arts. I tremble to say, in the presence of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, whether that is true about the theatre. But there is a renaissance in some of the others and certainly in documentary films we have a good deal to show. But there is also this question of looking after the people when they are in this country.
I am rather alarmed at the present moment about the hiatus between club-land and fun-land. For those who go to clubs, and are members of them, there is a comfortable room, very often with a delightful library, and reasonably cheap meals. For the masses there is a good deal of what I might call fun-land amusements. But for the great masses of ordinary people in London let alone in the provincial cities there is often literally nothing. There are a few places where one can sit down comfortably and have a cup of tea between, shall I say, Claridges and Lyons. There are few places where one can take one's friends in the evening except either very expensive places or literally almost the open air.


This is a great opportunity to bring these and other matters home to public and private enterprise because of the needs of the Exhibition itself.
I do not believe that this will detract from any of the essential work of the country. Some of us, like the hon. Member for Edgbaston, are alarmed at the postponement of the work at Birmingham University. We hoped that the Vice-Chancellor would have a proper house and that there would be a proper centre for the university. Alas, that will not come about for the next four or five years. Many projects have to be put off because of the general need for houses and essential schools. Therefore, in that perspective, the amount of work done in the Festival ought to be completely minor in its effect on other work. I regard this as something which is badly needed.
One hon. Member asked why we should have the Festival in 1951—why not 1952 or 1953? There is not only the sentimental reason, the memory of 1851. It is high time that the country had five months of "let up." It is high time that the people of this country had the chance of working, as they will be, in a great common effort. I think that alone, especially in the sphere of the arts, will make an enormous contribution. I only hope that the Council of the Festival will as soon as possible make known to everyone more precise details so that those who will be working with the Government can feel that apart from "production, production, production," which is the cry of the moment and will be for some years; apart from the fact that it is difficult to go abroad; and apart from many other restrictions which necessarily must affect the country, there will be this other great idea for which they are working. A poet said:
Greece, though conquered, held the world in chains.
I say that Britain, though temporarily and economically embarrassed, has something more to give the world, and I hope that 1951 will show it.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: In supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, may I also express the view that the decision to hold this Exhibition and to develop the South Bank of the Thames

between Westminster and Waterloo Bridge is indeed a great conception. It is something about which the Government, the London County Council and, if I may say so, the Lord President can be justly proud. I am particularly interested in Clause 1 (2) which provides for piers at the Exhibition site, because I am interested in water buses. I have no financial interest, but I am chairman of a committee set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport which was charged with the responsibility of organising the service which we had last year and which will be resumed in the early days of April.
One of the obstacles to the development and greater use of the River Thames for passenger traffic is the lack of piers. In days gone by when the Thames was in daily use as an artery for traffic there were over 100 piers and landing places in regular use. But those have mostly all gone. I am therefore delighted to see in this Bill that a pier or piers will be provided at the South Bank. Already my colleagues and I are planning to arrange that by the time the Exhibition opens in 1951 we shall be able to place at the disposal of the authorities a water bus service of sufficient dimensions to make a substantial contribution to their transport problem. I believe that the South Bank pier or piers and the water buses of themselves will be one of the big attractions of the Exhibition. Many people will enjoy the Festival but there will be added pleasure in being able to come and go by water.
The South Bank piers for which provision is made in the Bill will be of little use of themselves in assisting with the great traffic problem at the Exhibition unless there is a reasonable number of other piers up and down the river. At present we have only eight passenger piers in use between Putney and Greenwich. Steps are being taken to provide more. On the initiative of the Mayor of Hammersmith discussions are proceeding with a view to providing a pier which will serve the people of that important riverside borough. Negotiations are in progress with the Port of London Authority and the London County Council to provide additional piers and extensions of existing structures. I wish to impress upon the Government that we shall not readily get these piers unless the Govern-


ment take an interest and use their influence. They should see that they are provided in good time, not only to meet the needs of the Exhibition but also to satisfy current requirements of passenger traffic on the river.
In Clause 1 provision is made for a pier or piers which may be temporary or permanent. I make a strong plea for this opportunity to be taken to provide a permanent pier at the South Bank—not merely a bit of a landing stage or a pontoon but a proper pier built into the super-structure of the South Bank which will be worthy of the site and of the service which it can give to that great district of South London. I should like to see a structure which will not only give pier facilities for people travelling by water, but which will in time become a riverside rendezvous for the people of South London so that they can enjoy the delights of our wonderful river. I should like to see a South Bank pier with cafes, a restaurant and perhaps a nearby bandstand, with plenty of seats in its precincts, where people can sit and enjoy the wonderful view of the North side—the centre of the Metropolis—and at the same time watch the never-ending and interesting traffic which passes to and fro on the river. I should also like to see these piers provided with some protection against bad weather.
This is a wonderful opportunity, and I hope that amenities like those I have suggested will be provided, and that the authorities will take steps to see that they are incorporated in the proposals before it is too late and before the plans are too far advanced. With those observations, I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has been making a plea for additional piers. I think this Government should be able to handle that job very well, because they have shown us how easily they can create additional peers out of very poor material.
As a London Member, I feel that my remarks should be applied mostly to London. This is a splendid project, but I think what the Government have to watch is that they do not concentrate too much on the preparation of the actual

place of the Festival across the river, and fail to realise that this Festival will not be the success it could be unless the whole of London is considered as part of the general plan. I also ask them to consider that the very word "festival" reminds us of the word "festive." Therefore, something must be done to keep the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of this altogether. I agree that he has to supply the money, but he should not be concerned in preparing the Festival at all, though we should not mind if he were to be an exhibit. We must have people like the Lord President, who are showmen, with London in their hearts, and men who know and understand the crowd psychology.
I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that we have almost to dramatise the river. It seems to me that the river is a great part of this plan. We might have pageants on the river. We must remember the people who will come from the outer Empire and from the United States, and who have no experience of pageantry like the English. I have always thought that the English, with all their notorious modesty, are the greatest masters of pageantry in the world. Those of us who attended the Coronation will never forget the crescendo of effect which, in the theatre, would have required all sorts of producers and directors. Somehow, that job was done superbly, and they did it again last year at the Silver Wedding anniversary. What I am afraid of is that, with the belief in the amateur—which does not apply purely to the party opposite—we shall put these things in the hands of those who are not masters of pageantry. We ourselves in the Conservative Party held an exhibition a few years ago called "Free the People." We had many good ideas, but we failed to consult anybody who knew anything at all about an exhibition.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No wonder it was a flop.

Mr. Baxter: It was a flop. The hon. Gentleman does not need to point that out to me; I am confessing that it was a flop. The reason was because we failed to consult anybody who knew anything about an exhibition. I hope the Government will avoid that mistake in this case.
There is another matter that we should not forget and that concerns the Tower of London, with all its grim memories. I am not sure that we should not have a spectacle there, with people dressed in the dresses of the olden times. The Tower of London should be included in these plans for the benefit of people from overseas, who will also want to see the House of Commons with its Terrace lit up and the river illuminated, and do not let us forget that our visitors themselves will want to get lit up. Are there to be any relaxations of the licensing laws? There should be. The Americans, who are still a free people, do not understand our drink laws. Are we to relax them? Perhaps I am making an appeal on this point to representatives of a Government which may not be in power at that time, but at least the present Government are making the plans, and I hope they will take note of the suggestion.
I also hope that they will go a little further afield. I have in my constituency an abandoned palace, not in the spiritual sense of the word, of course, but one which houses television. Alexandra Palace could play a great part in connection with this exhibition and could bring to the enlightened district of Wood Green a great many people who would be delighted to go there.
May I also say, without having the slightest financial interest in this project, that we should consult Mr. Butlin about it? I think we should bring in Billy Butlin, who is a natural showman, and also General Critchley, who is another natural showman with great imagination. I think these men would be only too glad to co-operate and advise such eminent experts as my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who I see is on the Committee. My right hon. Friend is a thoughtful, clever and delightful man, but I should like him to have the impact of brains of men like Butlin and Critchley who understand this kind of thing.
I think it is a splendid idea that London should take more care of its South Bank. How much Paris makes of its river, compared with what we have done with the Thames. I agree that the Thames has on its South Bank that monstrosity the London County Council building, very utilitarian, but making it very difficult for any other kind of architecture to

sit down beside it. There is the semi-ruined St. Thomas's Hospital and then the strange battlements of Lambeth Palace. It is truly time that we did something across there, and I am delighted to think that it is going to happen.
Finally, we must not forget the arts. We should not forget the festival which will be going on at Stratford-on-Avon. Shakespeare means more to the Americans than does this Government, and all the Opposition as well. The Americans feel as if they own Shakespeare, but may I say that the arrangements at Stratford-on-Avon are unimaginative and not very good. Even on the opening day, the trumpets were inside the theatre and not outside it. Somebody in Stratford needs waking up. The arts must play a very big part in this Festival. There is at the present time in London a golden era of acting, though not of writing, I am sorry to say, and I only wish as much could be done in finding writers as has been done in discovering actors. We have Sir Laurence Olivier, Sir Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud, who are national assets. So far as I am concerned, as a London Member and as one who was born in Canada, I rejoice at the very prospect of the dramatisation of this, the greatest city in the world. I wish good luck to the Festival.

Mr. Messer: Is not the hon. Gentleman a Middlesex Member, rather than a London Member?

Mr. Baxter: When speaking in Middlesex I am a Middlesex Member but, down here, I become a London Member.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: As a member of the London County Council of some years' duration, I welcome this Bill, and I believe that in so doing I am echoing the views of all my colleagues of every political party on that council. This Bill will help to provide an improved transport service which is needed, not only by the Festival of Britain Exhibition, but which would have been needed in any case by the development of the South Bank. For that reason, we in London especially welcome it. It must be remembered that the extension of the embankment which is just being started will increase the area by four and a half acres. Whether that land is laid out entirely in the form of


gardens or not, people will have to reach it. Some will come by boat, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson), but others will come by road and train. Instead of having several acres of derelict property which is very little used at present, we hope, in time, to have on the South Bank a concert hall, a National Theatre, and many important public buildings. All these things will involve increased transport facilities, wider roads, and more facilities for access.
I hope that in this development everything possible will be done to retain the natural beauty of the site and its historical monuments. As I passed along the embankment yesterday, I saw one of the red lions of the brewery being taken down to be repaired and repainted. But what concerns me much more is the Shot Tower. I hope that this tower will remain permanently on that site and not only temporarily as is proposed, because it is a monument of the industry of the past and seems to me an essential part of London as I have always known it. In this connection, I would strongly support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould). She pointed out how important a knowledge of the Government of this country and some explanation of the history and work of the Mother of Parliaments is for the education of all those who visit the Exhibition. I hope that those concerned with the Exhibition will very carefully consider what can be done in an exhibition so near the Palace of Westminster to show people, or at any rate to explain to them, the democratic form of Government which we have in this country.
There is one more thing with which I should like to deal. I trust that people will not think that the London County Council is, so to speak, cashing in on the Festival of Empire just to get things done which would not otherwise be done. I would remind the House that the London County Council had a scheme for the development of the South Bank fairly fully worked out as early as 1935, and that in the General Powers Bill of 1939 a definite scheme was proposed which would have been carried out long ago had it not been for the war.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark

(Mr. Naylor) that more ought to be done to provide parking facilities. It seems a little absurd, as suggested in this Bill, that people coming to London by car and coach in order to visit the Exhibition should have to park their vehicles as far away as Clapham Common. Cannot bombed sites nearer to the Exhibition be used, or is it not possible to obtain other accommodation? It is a long way from Clapham Common to this area, and I suggest to the Minister that he should carefully consider the provision of parking factilities more amenable to the needs of the people visiting the Exhibition. With these few remarks, I strongly commend this Bill to the House, and on behalf of the London County Council thank the Government for its introduction.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: While listening to the Debate, I was particularly impressed at the absence of any definite criticism either of the Festival itself or of the proposals in this Bill. It is quite clear that what the Lord President hoped for has happened. This Bill has, in fact, the support of both sides of the House.
I was particularly impressed with what the hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) had to say about this being a festival, and one not confined to London, but one in which the arts all over the country were to be given a chance of being displayed with full lustre and beauty. He mentioned Edinburgh as having during the past two years started festivals of this type, and he hoped that in 1951 there would be a particularly superb Edinburgh Festival. He also mentioned a festival at Aldeburgh, which is in my constituency. It is a very small town. What they did last year was a most interesting accomplishment. By getting people to subscribe small amounts they managed to run a small festival of great taste and refinement which attracted nationwide attention. That spirit can be kindled in other parts of the country, and I think that this 1951 Festival will give the nation a chance to think more of its culture than, perhaps, it has been in a position to do for some time.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) is a member of the London County Council. I also happen to have that privilege, and I think it must be admitted that in this Bill very definite


responsibilities are going to be handed over to that council. A number of hon. Members, and, in particular, my right hon. Friend, who spoke after the Lord President, have shown concern about the time factor in the projects which we have been discussing this afternoon. They are anxious that the great task which has been handed to the various authorities shall be accomplished in time, because, if they are not, all the high hopes we entertain about the success of this Festival will be greatly endangered.
I wish to stress this question of time. The London County Council has to make very detailed traffic arrangements and is to be responsible for the erection of piers and river bridges. It is also to be responsible for acquiring land for car parks and for running those car milks. In addition to that, I do not think it has been generally appreciated that the London County Council is to be responsible for the building of a concert hall. I think the Lord President did mention the fact. It is to be responsible for the building of a concert hall which, as I understand it is to play a very big part in the London side of the Festival of Britain in 1951.
The London County Council have said, as they say in all these things, that they wish to co-operate with the Government to the utmost of their ability. They have gone so far as to say that in addition to those responsibilities which are being imposed upon them in this Bill, they are prepared to finish this concert hall by 1951. I think some hon. Members know probably better than I that the building of a concert hall is not a project which should be lightly undertaken because the question of acoustics raises a complicated problem. We have had the experience of the Albert Hall which disappointed those who were interested in its construction by being anything but perfect when it was finished, so far as acoustics were concerned.
I am told that if the London County Council is to complete this concert hall by 1951 there is a grave danger that the acoustics may not be as perfect as they could have been if a longer period had been taken to complete the hall. That, it may be said, is a risk which is worth taking, but I feel that it is a risk in which the Government should take some share, because this concert hall will be provided

out of the pockets of the ratepayers of London and not from the general taxpayer. If, through the willingness of the London County Council to finish this concert hall in time, risks are run and extra work is necessary at a later date to rectify some of the mistakes made through speed, then in fairness to Londoners, the Government should be prepared to go to the London County Council and say, "We are prepared to contribute some of this extra expense to which you have been put because you tried to do us a good turn." I think that is a reasonable point to put to the Minister and I want him to take it into consideration.
I join with all other hon. Members in wishing this Bill and the Festival, Godspeed. I think it is time that we in Britain had a chance of displaying our goods to the world in our own time and in our own fashion. I believe the world is going to be a considerably happier place as a result of what we are going to do in 1951, and I am also confident that we shall be a happier race by being give the chance to carry out this project.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I have listened to the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) with great interest and I am sure all of us in every part of the House will join with him in the general welcome which has been given to this very dramatic project for making a new British shop window to the world in 1951. I want, if I may, to revert for a very few moments to a point I have raised in this House once or twice recently. In doing so, perhaps I may say that I have been somewhat surprised and shocked by the fact that although the Exhibition of 1851 was held in a park and was very much related to open spaces, there has so far been no mention either in the Bill or in Ministerial statements of making use of any of the great open spaces of the Greater London area. When I am speaking of Greater London I naturally include parts of Middlesex in which my own constituency lies and other places which are technically not part of the administrative county of London.
We have in this capital of ours probably the finest open spaces and the finest public gardens of any capital city in the


world I should be the last to criticise the excellent project for the development of part of the South Bank of the river Thames. It has two great virtues, one of which is that it will provide a magnificent temporary exhibition site and the second is that it will enable work to be carried out which should have been carried out long ago and which will have a permanent value.
For a moment I want to refer to the (question of the extension of part of the Festival of Britain to the grounds of Chiswick House which lies in my constituency. There are, I believe, a number of special reasons for choosing that particular place and I will mention them briefly. As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, Chiswick House is one of the few surviving and probably one of the finest examples of Palladian architecture in this country. A few months ago, by the generosity of the local authorities concerned, the Borough Council of Brentford and Chiswick and the County Council of Middlesex, that building was presented to the nation, and we have been given an assurance by the Minister of Works and other persons concerned that they will put in hand the work of restoring this building to a fine state of preservation. I was grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning when, on 28th January, he told the House he would consult with the Minister of Works to see whether these repairs can be speeded up so as to be completed in time for the Exhibition of 1951.
But the repairing of Chiswick House itself is only part of the reason why I hope it will be possible to make it and its grounds one of the features in Greater London of the 1951 Exhibition. Another reason is that the house is surrounded by publicly owned gardens in a most beautiful state of preservation—I believe it is one of the finest open spaces in London—and they could be easily used for purposes like open air dramatic presentations, open air musical events and a great number of other open air activities which obviously cannot take place in the part of the South Bank of the Thames which we have been discussing. This kind of activity could be produced in the grounds of Chiswick House with greater ease than in a number of other open spaces which are normally devoted to uses which make

it difficult to undertake their sudden transformation in time for 1951.
Although we have heard rather depressing news about the use to which some open spaces are to be put in South London—the conversion of some small parks into places for the storing of motor cars, for instance—I hope it will be possible for the Minister to say something about the possibility of developing Chiswick House and its grounds into an attractive and useful part of the Festival of 1951. This is a matter which has been discussed locally, and which has the full support of the local authorities, and the local people, and I think its adoption would be not only to their advantage but also to the advantage of Greater London as a whole and to many thousands of foreign visitors whom we shall be happy to welcome in 1951.

6.9 p.m.

Sir William Darling: When I received a copy of this Bill I must say my heart rose because I was greatly encouraged by its title, "Public Works (Festival of Britain) Bill." Since glancing at its contents I find that is rather a more generous title than the contents seem to warrant. This is not a Public Works (Festival of Britain) Bill; it is a Bill for the purpose of providing footbridges, stages, escalators, subways and stairways, tramway works, road improvement schemes, public parking places and a number of other amenities for the London County Council.
I come from a local authority of a more stubborn and independent character, the local authority of the City of Edinburgh, where we have hitherto managed our own affairs without reverting to special pleadings of this description to provide our roads, parking places and other amenities. Some kindly references have already been made to the Festival of the City of Edinburgh. It may not be within the knowledge of the House that in the first instance the festival of the City of Edinburgh was entirely paid for by private persons. Some tens of thousands of pounds were raised from citizens, great and small, in the City of Edinburgh for this important enterprise.
What disappoints me and surprises me, in these days of financial stringency, is that the Public Works (Festival of Britain) Bill should, in fact, be a demand upon the taxpayers of the whole of the United


Kingdom for the support of the London County Council. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) very properly pointed out that the London County Council has not been wholly unaware of its responsibilities in this matter. Out of its enormous budget of, I think, some £40 million—it gets some £20 million by grant—it has £20 million to spend upon the growing and expanding population in its area and amenities for them. In 1925 the London County Council had an elaborate and satisfactory plan. [HON. MEMBERS: "In 1935."]
The hon. Gentleman protested because his conscience—he is a tender and kindhearted man—prompted him not to want anyone in this House to think that the London County Council was cashing in on this project and getting things done. His suspicions were right. I must admit that, dull though the Scots are normally, that impression was made on my mind. I will admit it. It occurred to me that it looked like—and I think the public at large will think it looks like—London's cashing in on the taxpayers of the other parts of Britain for things which London, if I judge it rightly, can well pay for itself.
I think a great capital city and a great council such as the London County Council should think twice before giving its support to this Measure. I cannot think of humble boroughs—Royal and humble boroughs—which would come forward with such a proposal. We have run festivals in other parts of the country. The borough of Aldeburgh and the Royal City of Edinburgh have been able to do it without making any demand upon the general public purse. Yet this great metropolis, the great wen which has sucked in the wealth and intelligence of the whole of the United Kingdom for 300 or 400 years, is coming cap in hand round South Wales, round the mining areas of Scotland, round Birmingham and Liverpool, all these battered, tattered towns and cities—the great County of London is coming cap in hand and begging for a couple of million pounds for its proper public works. I am not objecting to it, but I am pointing out that it may seem in the minds of some, possibly not so acclimatised to the English atmosphere as I am, a mere piece of impertinence if these

public works are to be developed by the Treasury.
Let me urge that some part, at any rate, of the money to be spent or granted should be spent in other areas. I want the whole of this country to be festive. I want it all to be gay and joyful. I am reminded that Stratford is having its share, and other places, but I have yet to see anything of this in this Bill. There are other important parts of the country which should have their part in what is after all, a British Festival If we are to have public works paid for by public funds for the benefit of London I do think we should expand the list of places to benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) points out to me that there are certain entrances into the county of London which could be improved. There is St. Pancras station and King's Cross with which we are familiar. Why subways and stairways at Charing Cross Underground station are to have special advantages from the Government I cannot think—unless it is that they are more familiar to Ministers travelling to and fro on their lawful duties. In the scheme I hope some consideration will be given to these other places.
I have only one other observation to make. I should not like anyone to think that any part of the country is unenthusiastic about the project. London is a great city. There is no city in the world like London. It is, even to a Scotsman, as Dr. Johnson reminded us, the destination to which that high road travels which so many fortunately seek. Do not let there be any disparagement of it. However, let hon. Members for London constituencies and London itself have in mind the wider implications of their great, grand scheme. Do not let them narrow it down too much. London has enjoyed Socialist direction for a score of years. It ill becomes a Socialist county council of all councils to come forward cap in hand for this project. It has had wide opportunities during these many years to expand its amenities, and that it should come in this year of grace 1949, begging other municipalities for support is not creditable.
I conclude by saying that this £2,000,000 will be gladly spent and well spent if it is part of the expenditure on a Festival for all Britain. To narrow it


down and limit it to capital assets which are to be presented to the London County Council, and which will remain capital assets of theirs, is, I think, a distortion of public finance to which I would take very serious and grave exception. I would add that there must be in London many thousands of wealthy men and women, even supporters of the Government, who would like to associate themselves, not as taxpayers or ratepayers, with this project, who would, as the citizens of Edinburgh did, open a subscription list, and with their £10,000, or £5,000, or £1,000 or smaller gifts, subscribe to this admirable scheme. I am sure that would contribute to the greater success it would enjoy.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I do not think the House will expect me to follow the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). We have listened to a piece of Scottish humour, and we can let it pass at that, because the whole of the hon. Gentleman's case was completely wrong. The London County Council was asked by the Government to come in on this, and with very great pleasure it agreed to come in on it. As a London ratepayer I do not think we shall make any money out of it.

Sir W. Darling: Oh.

Mr. Gibson: Some of us for many years have been trying to get an improvement along the South Bank of the Thames, and we shall get that improvement. Speaking as one who represents Lambeth on the London County Council, I am very glad that one of the propaganda points that I have had to use against the Opposition is now to be lost to me by the cleaning up for good and all, of the horrible mess on the South Bank of the Thames.

Sir W. Darling: At a national charge.

Mr. Gibson: At a cost to London ratepayers, in the main. In doing that, we can obtain a Festival of Britain which will show the world what Britain is doing, and that, I think, is in itself well worth doing. Therefore, I support this Bill wholeheartedly, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) did, I can assure the House that, so far

as the London County Council is concerned, the Government will have all its support in making this Festival a really national festival for the whole of Britain. I think the natural place for such a Festival of Britain is London.

Sir W. Darling: Naturally.

Mr. Gibson: I may be biased, being a Cockney, of which I am not ashamed, but I think it is the natural place. I think the part of the Thames which was associated with Shakespeare in the past, and associated with the very grand work of the old Vic in developing the love of culture, is just the place where such an exhibition ought to be held. I hope the Exhibition will be a great success. In so tar as I represent part of the Borough of Lambeth and part of the Borough of Southwark, I can assure the House that I have already received expressions of their keen interest and their desire and determination to help in the utmost in making this Festival, so far as they are able, a great success. I have not heard of any complaints yet from people in those boroughs with a political persuasion similar to that of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. I have not heard any of them object in any way to the public expenditure which will inevitably be incurred.
I am glad the Exhibition is to be something more than the formal type of exhibition we have had in the past. I have seen the exhibitions in Paris, and I think that one of their great attractions was that they were on the river bank. On this occasion we shall be able to use the Thames in a way which I hope will result in it being used much more in the future than it has been in the past, and that we shall be able to have boats running on it for the use of Londoners, Scotsmen, and people from all over the world, who will be able to see the many fine things which can be seen from the Thames. The more that we use the Thames, the better for London and Britain. I hope that the proposal for developing the river service will be a great success.
As part of the scheme it is proposed to have a live exhibition. By that is meant the reconstruction in the East End of London of London's bombed boroughs in order to show the world not only what London went through—and it must be


remembered that London suffered a terrific battering during the war with great loss both of people and property—but how we have recovered from that battering. In the borough of Stepney, there is to be a huge re-development which will not only show how we are re-housing our people in modern homes, but how we are building amusement places, churches and community centres, and—what I am extremely keen about—providing in that part of London open spaces for people to play in and enjoy themselves where none exist at the moment. The scheme for the development of a large area of Stepney and Poplar as part of the great Exhibition is one, I am sure, about which everyone will be enthusiastic, particularly as it is proposed to take people from the Exhibition by river to the site of the new development.
A point which I wish to stress, and on which I hope the Minister can give me some assurance, is that which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare). We are up against the time factor. It will be extremely difficult to get the rebuilding of not merely the concert hall but of the East End of London, which is to be part of the Exhibition, in time. I hope that the Minister and the Government will make a big effort to cut down the time which it takes to get through the legal machinery for any building project of this kind. At the County Hall we are doing our utmost in this respect, but we are afraid that unless the necessary legal steps which have to be taken can be speeded up, we shall not be able to build sufficiently by 1951 to provide a complete and comprehensive exhibit for people from abroad to see.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say that some assistance will be given to the London County Council and the other London boroughs who are interested in this and other projects connected with the Exhibition, to beat this time factor. It would be a tragedy if in 1951 we were unable to have a complete exhibition showing not only the work and life of Britain but the great efforts that are being made to reconstruct our battered London. The Government should be able to help us in that connection.
Finally, I believe that this is a chance to show the world that Britain has

recovered from the battering which the war gave her; that the ordinary common people of this country can produce something well worth seeing; and to show the world not only what the British way of life means but the arts and crafts and all that goes to make life sweet and beautiful in the "great wen." We shall do all that we can to help but the time factor is seriously worrying some of us because we want to see the exhibition a great success.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Howard (Westminster, St. George's): Bearing in mind the important position which the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) holds in the London County Council, there is no need for me to stress the importance of timing. That clearly must be in the mind of the Minister. Two matters have been stressed on both sides of the House—quality and comfort. The quality of the Exhibition itself if of vital importance. I shall not add my ideas to those already expressed on the particular ways and means by which that quality can be assured. The question of the comfort of those who will, we hope, visit the exhibition is equally important. The provision for visitors and guests which London, and particularly the South Bank, is able to make today, falls far short of what we hope it will be able to provide in 1951.
A point which I particularly wish the Minister to make clear, because I am a little alarmed by some of the remarks made, is which of the public works are to be temporary and which are to be permanent. I am alarmed because the Bill makes provision for many hundreds of yards of new tramways. It has been the hope of many of us in London to see tramways abolished completely, and I believe I am right in saying that the London County Council share that view. It would come as a great shock to me if I found that, as a result of this Bill, instead of reducing the number of tramways on the South Bank, we were to add to them as a permanent feature.
Concerning traffic arrangements generally, the London County Council have admirable designs for the future. The present arrangements are largely improvised in order to deal with the particular traffic problem which the Metropolitan Police can see will arise in


connection with the Exhibition. I ask the Minister to make it as clear as possible that there is no intention to use these admittedly temporary improvisations in any way to hamper the London County Council or the other authorities in making those better permanent improvements which are already envisaged. A considerable sum of money is to be spent, and there is bound to be a tendency at a later date to say that, having spent so much money, surely we are not going to spend more in order to make changes The position of the further-ahead future should be safeguarded today by a very clear statement, and an appreciation by all Members of this House that part of this Exhibition must be of a temporary nature and that only part of it will be a contribution to the permanent improvement to the South side of the river.

6.31 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am not a London Member but I welcome the Bill. I feel that it is inevitable that London should be the stage for such a vast enterprise. None the less, I had some sympathy with the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) in voicing another point of view. Some part of this money will have to be subscribed by us all, wherever we live. There is a feeling throughout the provinces that London not only gets a great deal but sometimes has it all. That is a feeling which ought to be dissipated, because it is possible for some of our citizens to visit the greatest city in the world and to take advantage of the amenities that are displayed here. But other constituents say: "How often can we go to London? What chance shall we get of going to enjoy the Festival of Britain? What opportunities will there be for hotel or lodging accommodation, even if we were able to afford it?" Certainly, very few workers, like miners or potters, will be able to come down. They will see some of it on the shadow screen of their picture houses and that is as far as they will get.
The provinces also argue like this: Before the war we had 17 great national collections in museums and art galleries. Of those, 13 were in London. To support them, £1 million came directly from the Treasury. Except in the case of Cardiff, which had a little from the rates of that city, the 700 provincial galleries and

museums got nothing from the Treasury. The total amount of money which they had at their disposal was less than £500,000 a year, and it had to come from the rates and private benefactions. I hope that as time goes on the Government will recognise that the provinces have a right to express grievances when the opportunity comes.
There is a further reason why I am very glad that we are having the Festival, and I agree that it must be in London. It is that I see enormous benefits coming to the provinces. The reason is roughly like this: In North Staffordshire, in the Potteries, and also in South Staffordshire. Wolverhampton and many other parts of the country, the London scheme has awakened a determination that we shall not fall behind London and that we shall have our own festivals. We know that we shall have to pay for them ourselves and that not so very many people will come to us because we cannot accommodate them. We are willing to accept them for a day, and for day after day, to come in by road and train. We have not enough hotels or living accommodation for crowds of visitors in our provincial towns, but we have good will and we shall be able to show our visitors what our own native genius has to proffer.
In North Staffordshire we do not expect to send our best pottery to the festival in London. We intend to keep a great deal of it on show ourselves in the Potteries. If anybody finds it difficult to go to London they can come to us, and we shall gladly show it to them. We recognise that our miners and potters, 50, 60 or 70 years ago, learned how to sing in community together and in co-operative fashion to keep their hearts up. Out of that sprang our great tradition of choral singing. We intend to offer our best choral singing in the festival. North Staffordshire is not afraid to compete against the Welsh, or the Czechs who are also great choral singers. I give an open invitation to hon Members on both sides of the House. If they want to hear new works performed they will find it best done in my constituency of Hanley, in a hall with excellent acoustics. They will be able to hear those works properly produced, particularly those which are novel and new.
I welcome the Bill as a step forward It is the first real step towards offering


patronage of the arts. It will be an encouragement of the arts and of all the arts. It is making patronage by the State possible. We must have a direct interest shown by both the State and the municipalities in the arts and in fostering the arts, as well as in science and industry. The 18th century was in some respects the most glorious of our history, because there was then a great aristocratic tradition of patronage. There were men who had both money and taste and it had taken a very long time to breed them. They were a very small percentage out of that class and they were useful to us. Our furniture, sculpture, painting, pottery and literature generally were magnificent. In the next century we had a new class of people after the Industrial Revolution. They had more money and no taste at all. We suffered so considerably that we have scarcely recovered yet.
Today we have not only a redistribution of income but a redistribution of good taste. Good taste has been widely diffused among our people. There is a greater hunger and a greater demand for the good things of life than ever before by millions, literally many millions, of people. We see it everywhere. Our young folk crowd our great concert halls in the provinces to hear great orchestras like the Hallé. They have been taught as children in the schools to appreciate them. We now find that 40 per cent. of our audiences are boys who have scarcely begun to shave and girls who have only just put up their hair. In every aspect of our lives we see that a renaissance is now possible. There is less money, however, in the hands of private individuals for patronage. All the more reason then why the Government, having taken a step like this, on which all sides of the House congratulate them, should take further steps without fear or favour so that our arts and sciences may live and thrive under our economy.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Reeves: All who are aware of what London has contributed to British history will feel that it is proper that this Exhibition should be held in London. Those who were born in London and who have seen it develop during the last quarter of a century or so will feel that it would have been impos-

sible to find a more suitable site than the South Bank of the Thames. Those who have been engaged in local government, as have many of us in this House, have always felt ashamed that that South Bank should present such a sorry spectacle. It is a disgrace to our capital. Now comes an amazing opportunity to clean it up and to take it, as it were, from one extreme to another.
I was born in South London, in Camberwell. I have lived in London practically all my life. I left school at 13 years of age and I continued my education at Morley College along the Waterloo Bridge Road, next door to the Old Vic. This is almost a sacred spot to many of us. Now we are going to see it glorified, as it should be most properly, having regard to its place in our history. It must have afforded my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council great pleasure to introduce this Bill, because he is a great Londoner and has contributed very greatly to the improvement of London. I was visualising this Exhibition, with that magnificent semi-background of Waterloo Bridge for which my right hon. Friend was largely responsible. To him we owe a very great debt of gratitude for his foresight in those earlier days. Although the Exhibition is to be geographically confined, there is no reason why it should merely be an exhibition on this particular site. London offers many facilities for extending it.
As this is to be largely a cultural Exhibition, I see no reason why we should not use the adjacent parks for extending the work. There is St. James's Park and the great Battersea Park. It would, of course, be very improper for me to mention parks without also referring to Greenwich Park, which is of great historic significance. There we have the famous Wren buildings on the banks of the Thames—the great Naval College, the Maritime Museum and Queen's House. If we visualise the Exhibition in this way, it will assume larger proportions than those visualised up to now. I know that we speak of the Exhibition under a great disability, because this Bill deals only with road and transport facilities and so on, and we do not know what the Exhibition will be like in its final form. But it is to be a cultural exhibition.
I remember visiting Moscow many years ago and seeing the parks of culture


there. The Continental peoples use their parks very differently from us. Many thousands of people go into the parks on the Continent every evening. The parks are beautifully lit, and all manner of activities, such as open-air theatres, cinemas and concerts are carried on there. There is no reason why we also should not use our parks for these purposes during the summer months. It would not mean despoiling the parks, because we should not have to erect large structures but could use the parks themselves as the amphitheatre. Similarly, we could use our parks for the other purposes of this Exhibition, and I hope those responsible for the programme of the Exhibition will bear that point in mind.
We must also consider the matter of lighting. I want to see London magnificently lighted during the Exhibition. We have had sufficient austerity in this respect. I was in Brussels a few days ago, and when I went to the Royal Opera House to see a performance of "Faust" at night, it was almost like daylight. London is a very dull city these days compared with many Continental cities. We should flood-light all our best buildings. We want to have the the spirit of May Day, as it were, after the period of dullness and austerity through which we have passed. If we can conceive of the Exhibition in these terms, I am sure it will put new heart into our people. This will be a period of rejoicing, because by then we shall have solved some of our problems, although, by no means all of them; we have already scaled the foothills and by then we should be moving towards the peaks, and we shall want to have a period of rejoicing. For instance, the fountains in Trafalgar Square ought to be lighted, and we want the neon lights back. I know all this may cost a lot of money, but it will present London as it should be presented, the London we knew before the war, but beautified and made resplendent. I am sure that such a London will make a great appeal to the hundreds of thousands of visitors who are coming over here.
The senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) has referred to the festivals that are to be held. I hope that we shall have a films festival, a music festival and a drama

festival, and that we shall use the theatres of London as they have never been used before. We have more theatres than any other city in the world. We want to present the works of representative English, Scottish and Welsh writers, and to let our visitors see what we have done in the past and what we are capable of doing in the present. I was in Prague some time ago, where I saw an open-air film exhibition. Some people might think that such a festival is impossible, but the festival in Prague was most interesting, particularly in the way it had been worked out. The whole history of the film was told by graphs and pictures, and in the evening some of the finest films were thrown on the screen in the open air. We too should think on those lines.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) mentioned that the Palace of Westminster will be challenging all those who visit the Exhibition. The visitors will not be able to miss it; it will be calling them all the time. We shall have thousands of visitors to the Palace of Westminster, and we must prepare for them—that must be part of our plans. I suspect that Mr. Speaker and all those associated with him will have one or two headaches on that score. The Palace of Westminster is a historic building, which is in a way a counterpart of what is happening on the other side of the river. It is an ancient institution which will beckon people over from the other side of the river. I like the idea of using Westminster Hall. It is an amazing place. I am sorry that it is in such a condition just now, and I am longing for the time when we can see it in all its glory, for it is an ancient hall and represents much in our history. I may have spoken too long, but I feel strongly about this. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) may feel jealous, but he must not forget that he has the magnificent Princes Street with its delightful vista and that Edinburgh is a beautiful city for an exhibition in Scotland.

Sir W. Darling: Princes Street was provided by the ratepayers and not by the Crown.

Mr. Reeves: This will be provided by the ratepayers.

Sir W. Darling: No, by the Crown.

Mr. Reeves: A little, perhaps, but the main part will be provided by Londoners and maintained by them in the days to come. I am sure that the whole House will give the Lord President of the Council every support with the Bill.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: I want to deal briefly with a very limited aspect of the Bill. I should like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) when he spoke about the proposal in Clause 5 under which the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park might be taken over for use as a car park during the period of the Exhibition. I assure the Minister of Transport that the people of Southwark feel very strongly indeed about the proposal. The Lord President of the Council said he hoped that the people of Southwark and Lambeth would co-operate in order to brighten up those areas and provide fitting surroundings for the Exhibition. I believe they will co-operate in that way, but I assure the Government that the enthusiasm of the people of Southwark for the Exhibition will be very much greater if we remove this provision under which they can be deprived of the use of a very important open space.
Southwark has only 34 acres of open space for a population of 97,000, which is just over one-third of an acre for each thousand inhabitants. The park is 14½ acres, representing more than 40 per cent. of the total amount of open space in this very overcrowded borough. If the people were denied the use of the park for recreational purposes for a substantial number of months, as they might be under the Bill, it would be a very great misfortune for them. Under the Clause the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park is coupled with Clapham Common, which can also be used for this purpose, but in the case of Clapham Common the area which can be taken over is specifically limited to eight acres. There is no limitation at all in the case of the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park. The whole park can be taken over—and that in an area where there is a very much greater shortage of open space than around Clapham Common in the Borough of Wandsworth.
The Lord President suggested that the Government might not need to use this space as a car park. I hope that is so. However, the people of Southwark will feel very much happier if they have not merely an expression of hope that the area will not be needed but an assurance that the provision will be deleted from the Bill. There are alternative areas. There are many bombed sites—I have here a list of seven which I can give the Minister, and there are many others—which could be used for the purpose of car parking. I hope that the Minister will look at this again and see if it is possible to delete this provision so that this extremely important open space in one of the most crowded areas of London can be left for recreational purposes during the period of the Festival.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I was surprised and disappointed at the speech of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). It was unworthy of him. It was a narrow and carping speech, and it contrasted with the excellent welcome given to the Bill by the hon. Member's leader the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison). As it came from a representative of the beautiful and noble city of Edinburgh, famous in story, legend and picture and famous for its own Festival, it was astonishing to find the hon. Member damning the Bill with faint praise:
willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike.
Perhaps his explanation and excuse can be found in the fact that London is all over the Bill and, indeed, all over the Debate. Very little has been said of the fact that the Festival is a national festival rather than a mere ward tea party, as the hon. Member for South Edinburgh seemed to think it would be. The Bill should not be approached in a party manner, and I am glad that most of those who have already spoken have approached the subject in the correct way. This is an idea which one would expect to be discussed in the grand manner, not, I am afraid, by me, because I have not the power to do it, but by great and experienced leaders of this nation both in the House and outside. The idea of the Festival is a Brand and noble idea calculated to benefit the whole country industrially, intellectually and


aesthetically. The Bill is designed to further this great and noble project.
The Festival will be held at a time in the nation's history which is very appropriate. Already we are overcoming the losses of the war and we are repairing the devastation in every field. This is admitted by all who are not inspired by a purely party spirit. Instances are to be found daily in the newspapers and in our statistics. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, chairman of the Midland Bank, moving the report of that bank up to 31st December the other day——

Sir W. Darling: Not the Midland Bank.

Mr. Hughes: No, Lloyds Bank. I am obliged. I am glad to find that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh is correct in something. Lord Balfour of Burleigh pointed out that we are overcoming our national inflation, increasing production and checking the raising of prices. Lloyds Register up to the same date pointed out that we are producing one-half of the world's shipping. Our national statistics show that the nation is enjoying full employment and is on the upgrade. I therefore submit that next year will be a particularly appropriate time for this Exhibition which will depict in pictures, figures, diagrams, song and drama what has happened since 1851 when the last great Exhibition was held here. I take it that it will depict the history of the years of mismanagement between the two wars and this post-war period. I therefore submit that next year will be a most appropriate time to hold this Exhibition and that this Bill is a most appropriate way in which to take steps to provide for it.
I hope it will not be regarded as too high falutin' if I say that 2,000 years ago Pericles said to the Athenians:
There is a time, O Athenians, when it is fitting for us notionally to take our stand upon a little hill and survey the beauties of Athens, realise her achievements, regard her traditions and rejoice in her victories and so seeing and realising these things, love her all the more.
I venture to say that never in the history of this country was there a period, and perhaps never will there be a period, when it would be more appropriate to hold the Exhibition which will be held next year——

Mr. Skeffington: The Exhibition is to be held in 1951.

Mr. Hughes: It is a small point and I thank the hon. Member for making a small point in a small way with a small mind about a noble idea. It does not make the slightest difference to the argument I am presenting to the House.

Sir W. Darling: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he tell the House what his constituency in North Aberdeen will think about the escalator at Charing Cross Station? That is in the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: That also is a petty point which does not make the slightest difference to the large national idea and to the argument which I am presenting to the House. I began by saying that this is a large and national idea, which should be approached in a large and national way, and not in the small and petty way which the hon. Member for South Edinburgh sought to do, and the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington), who interrupted me with regard to the year when the Exhibition is to be held. The right hon. Member for Cirencester said that we could not emulate the grandeur of the Exhibition of 1851. We can try, however, and that is the object of this Festival. Its value will be that it will be a stimulus to national effort. It will attract large numbers of people from abroad, it will encourage a spirit of emulation, it will attract needed capital and it will promote international understanding. The cost may be great. It will immobilise large stocks of goods for the period of the Exhibition. It will absorb great numbers of workers and perhaps divert them from production for the period, but it is all well worth while. It will be an encouragement to good will, and, in my view, this Bill is a good one and makes proper provision for the great national effort that will be made in the year 1951.

7.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I shall not traverse the ground so forcefully and eloquently covered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes). Far be it from me to run the risk of incurring his indignation over anything that I may have to say in connection with


the Bill now under discussion. I am afraid that I shall have to strike a rather more mundane note after the flights of eloquence to which we have been treated in this Debate. Unlike most of the hon. Members who have taken part, it is not necessary for me to stake out a claim. Some hon. Members seemed to suggest that the Exhibition should also take place in Hanley, Edinburgh, and a number of other places. It will perhaps be some consolation to my right hon. Friend who is to reply, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen did not stake out any claim for that city and that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) is not in his place at the moment to stake out a claim for that part of Great Britain.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the following point. A problem arises in connection with the South Bank scheme which will of course add considerably to the amenities of Lambeth, one of whose Members I have the honour to be. I was reminded of it when, during the Second Reading Debate on the National Theatre Bill, the Financial Secretary held out the possibility that the National Theatre will not be liable to rating, although he made it clear that the position was still uncertain. This is perhaps an answer to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh and to other hon. Members who seemed to think that the Borough of Lambeth or the London County Council will be gaining great advantages in respect of which they are not incurring any liabilities.
It may well be, however, that despite the substantial additions made to the amenities on the South Bank, the local authorities concerned will not enjoy any increase in their rateable values. Let me put this point to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. When 50,000 or 100,000 people come along every day, there are bound to be thousands of tons of rubbish to be carted away. That will be the job of the Borough of Lambeth, and I hope it will not impose an undue burden on the ratepayers. That is a point which perhaps my right hon. Friend will bear in mind when considering the extent to which grants can be made besides the public works and road improvements set out in this Bill.
I reinforce the point previously made by hon. Members on the subject of parking. It is quite clear that Clapham Common will be most inconvenient on account of the distance. I ask my right hon. Friend to consult with the local authorities concerned—the Southwark Borough Council and the Lambeth Borough Council—both of which may be able to suggest to him alternative sites nearer the Exhibition which, without great expense, could be made into suitable parking places. As I have said already, it is quite clear that this project may—I hope it will not—involve the local authorities concerned in various forms of additional expenditure. I hope that such liabilities will have the sympathetic consideration of the Government Departments concerned when they are deciding what to do with such moneys as may be placed at their disposal. Like all other Members who have spoken in this Debate I cordially welcome the scheme, which, I have no doubt, will prove a landmark in the history of London and of this country as a whole.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. McAllister: I am sure that whatever warmth has been engendered in the Debate by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), the House will agree that two Members from the East of Scotland should speak. I, too, would like to speak as representing a Scottish constituency, because this is a Bill dealing with the Festival of Britain and we want it to be a Festival of Britain and not a Festival of London. Nevertheless, I have had the honour to live in the great hospitable City of London for quite a long time, and I feel that in some ways I am a Londoner too, having gone through the whole of that long period of blitzing during the war. People, whether indigenous Londoners or Londoners who have come to this great city, develop, if they do not have it instantaneously, a great and deep affection for a very great city.
No one coming to London can fail to contrast the dignity and splendour of one bank of the river with the poverty of a large part of the South Bank. Here in this Festival the Government are taking the opportunity of reconstructing a large part of the South Bank of the River


Thames, a part that came under very heavy bombardment from enemy fire, and the ruins of which are still there for everyone to see. All that will be cleared away, and instead a new and splendid area will develop as a great contribution to the architectural wealth of London. I am glad, incidentally, that in all the plans to make bridges and develop subways and pathways and so on, it is proposed to preserve the Shot Tower, because that is a great London landmark which most of us would be sorry to see disappear.
I do not think the hon. Member for South Edinburgh need have had quite so many fears about this Bill, even though it deals only with the London part of the Festival. After all, Scotland is well represented on the main Council of the Festival. There is the Right Hon. Thomas Johnston, a former Secretary of State for Scotland; Sir Frederick Stewart, a great West of Scotland industrialist; the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—another former Secretary of State for Scotland; and my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison). That, I think, is a weighty and imaginative representation of Scotland on the Council which, under Lord Ismay, controls this great Festival.
While I think the whole Council has been well composed, I would draw the attention of the Lord President of the Council to what appears to be one omission in the composition of the Council. The field of music is well represented by people like Sir Malcolm Sargent, and the theatre in its more serious aspect is well represented by Mr. John Gielgud; Mr. Gerald Barry, the Director of the Festival, with all his wealth of experience; and Mr. Leonard Crainford, with his special experience as the Director of the Stratford-on-Avon Shakespearean Theatre, will make vigorous and imaginative contributions to this great undertaking. But why, with all this imagination, has the lighter aspect of entertainment been completely omitted; and why has it no representation on the Council. I think there are dangers in forcing people to be too highbrow too quickly.
This is a Festival of Britain, and a festival of the people. We ought to cater for the people not only in their more serious moods but in their more frivolous

moments. An hon. Friend of mine has suggested that much would remain of permanent value to London. I hope that will be so, but I would like to see not only in London but in every large town in the United Kingdom something on the same scale and with the same imagination as the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, which seem to me to be a model to the world of how to combine high art and seriousness with the perfectly normal satisfaction of the more frivolous instincts of mankind.
The Festival of Britain will indeed be a great historical feat. Nobody on one side or the other wants to make any party capital out of this. We are commemorating the Exhibition of 1851, which was a turning point in British history. It started all sorts of movements which have not yet reached their end, in industry, architecture, music and drama. Great world festivals have always had that effect, and I hope this one will also add enormously to the spreading of knowledge, culture and, above all, joy and gaiety in this rather depressing century.

7.16 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, who I know has persisted in advancing this project in the face of many difficulties and disappointments, will be very gratified at the warmth of the reception of this Bill in all quarters of the House.
I feel rather guilty in that I am the author of those parts of this Bill in which I find hon. Members have not been particularly interested. There has not been a great deal of discussion about my roundabouts or subways or Bailey bridges, but I have been comforted by the knowledge that this machinery Bill, as Mr. Speaker described it, has provided an opportunity for Members to express their views and make their contributions on this important project. These have ranged far and wide, and I think at one stage in the discussion the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) advised me to try to keep the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of this project. As I listened to hon. Members, I came to the conclusion more and more that the Chancellor had better be very much in the consideration of this Festival, because many of the proposals


would carry us far beyond the expenditure to which so far we have limited ourselves.
So far as I gather, at this stage we have only made the decision that a Festival of Britain should be held in 1951 Various bodies are concerned. As the Minister of Transport, I am interested in the traffic arrangements; then there are the police authorities; the London County Council, the British Transport Commission; the Port of London Authority, and bodies of that kind The decision to hold the Festival on the South Bank was the theme which raised the problems we are considering here tonight.
This is an appropriate point at which to answer the views—I would not call them severe criticisms—expressed by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) It is quite wrong to accuse bodies such as the London County Council and the British Transport Commission, who have become involved in this project or are responsible for road and traffic arrangements, of trying to secure these improvements at the expense of the taxpayer. As I see it, they are under an obligation to carry out a national project. I do not hesitate for one moment to admit that immediately I became concerned with the transport arrangements—and I think there is a sensible and practical consideration which will appeal to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh—my desire was to see that if public money was to be spent, as much of it as possible was spent for permanent national advantage and improvements.
The London County Council, because of prevailing circumstances which affect private institutions and individuals and limit their opportunity for development, has a magnificent site which is not only of value to them as a public body, but is of importance to the whole commercial life and the amenities of London itself. If that site is chosen for an exhibition of this kind, then I think that the London County Council, like everyone else, is entitled to turn it to practical advantage. It is desirable that I, as the Minister replying for the Government, should repudiate any suggestion that any of these bodies have "muscled in" on this project for the purpose of their own limited advantage.

Sir W. Darling: They are getting the money. Whether they are "muscling in" or not, they are getting the £2 million.

Mr. Barnes: It is quite wrong to say that they are getting the money. The cost of any part of the project not of permanent advantage to the body concerned will be met from public funds that is to say, expenditure incurred solely for Exhibition purposes. For expenditure on any measure of permanent improvement which would save the body concerned expenditure later on, in road improvements or similar matters, they will get only the normal road grants, for example, which apply to every road improvement scheme.
Although these decisions will force the British Transport Commission to undertake certain alterations and new construction which they would not have undertaken, and would not have considered undertaking, at the present moment were it not for the decision to hold the Exhibition, if the alterations and constructions are of permanent value to the British Transport Commission, they will get no grant. It is only the unremunerative proportion which arises solely from the Exhibition needs, which will attract any public assistance. It is very desirable that that should be clearly understood.
The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), who I was glad to note supported the Bill, put one or two cogent and legitimate questions to me. I propose not so much to answer the general Debate, which was favourable to the project, as to answer the specific questions put to me. Probably the most important point the right hon. Member made concerned the compensation payable to persons suddenly inconvenienced and ejected, or whose lives and businesses are interrupted by a national project of this sort.
He is quite right in saying that the compensation provisions are determined on the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, values; but it is that plus the additional 60 per cent. of the amending Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. We must have decisions on these matters so that we can get on, although I would not say that they are arbitrary decisions. We think that that is the best and the fairest method of dealing with this problem. As the right


hon. Gentleman knows, this Bill is likely to go to a Select Committtee, and such issues can be thoroughly examined by those interested. If a case is made out, it will always be possible to have the matter reconsidered; but at the moment this appears to be the best basis on which compensation can be based.
The rehousing of or replacement facilities for displaced persons will be largely the responsibility of the London County Council, and I understand that land on the Lower Marsh and along the Cut, not far removed from their present habitations or businesses, will be used for rehousing the displaced shopkeeping and business elements; I also understand that householders will be dealt with within the general housing facilities and provisions of the London County Council. That is their responsibility, and I am sure they will do their best in that respect.
I relate the Parliament Square lay-out to the previous consideration of how to turn this national project to advantage. Parliament Square, with its roadway dividing the green spaces, affords an opportunity for improvement to traffic facilities in the area. If we are to hold this Exhibition on the South Bank, then the traffic pressure on Parliament Square is bound to increase, and a scheme has been agreed to: the middle roadway will be eliminated and the two green verges will be brought together; the roundabout will be considerably enlarged, which will enable a greater flow of traffic round Parliament Square. The scheme will add to the attraction of the area, and represents a permanent improvement in our road facilities in Parliament Square.
The right hon. Member also asked about the alteration of Westminster Bridge Road and Bridge Street. That alteration is largely a matter of re-aligning the islands dividing the traffic. In view of the increased volume of traffic, we shall alter the sites of the islands, possibly having one island instead of the two as at present. That will mean an alteration in the siting of the islands, which is not a structural alteration in the other sense. As to questions of accommodation, feeding and extension of licensing facilities, I am informed that the Festival authorities are holding discussions with the British Tourist and Holidays Board

and other appropriate bodies. As plans for the Exhibition take shape, all relevant matters will be gone into with the organisations directly concerned.
I can well understand the concern of the hon. Members for Central Southwark (Mr. Jenkins) and South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) that the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park might become involved in the arrangements for car-parking facilities. Perhaps I should explain briefly the proposals which the Bill contains. We anticipate that about 1,000 coaches daily may be coming from the Southern area alone. They must, of course, be provided with the necessary parking facilities. It is quite out of the question that coaches should be allowed to unload passengers at the entrance of, or anywhere near, the Exhibition.
The two sites on Clapham Common are intended chiefly for these coaches. This will not mean any curtailment of the amenities of the Common, because these two sites are at present merely refuse dumps. I have taken the opportunity of visiting all the proposed sites so that I may satisfy myself whether our proposals are justified. But for the requirements for the Festival, it is doubtful whether these huge mounds on Clapham Common would be removed for many years. The two sites, although separated, are adjacent to both Clapham Common and Clapham South stations and facilities will be provided to enable passengers, on leaving their coaches, to travel direct to the Exhibition. Hon. Members who have seen the plan of the transport arrangements which I have circulated, will have noticed that, on arrival at Waterloo, passengers will be able to use a short subway and escalator and thereby gain direct access to the Exhibition site.
Arrangements for coaches on the North side of the Thames have yet to be made. Although it is desirable for us to have these powers in the Bill, so that the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park may be used if the need arises, I can assure my hon. Friends that we are very sympathetic towards their views. Discussions are at present taking place, I understand, with Lord Rothermere, and I should not like at this stage to commit myself on whether or not this park will be required. We expect that something like 4,000 private cars daily will use the Exhibition area. A survey of all the bombed sites and possible parking facili-


ties within half a mile of the Exhibition site is being undertaken. Not until that survey is complete shall we be able to say with certainty whether the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park will be needed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: For private ears only or for coaches?

Mr. Barnes: That is an open question. I have visited the park and am aware of its difficulties and limitations. I noticed, however, that even today one section of it is covered by a certain amount of debris and obviously is not being used for recreational purposes. As I have already said, I cannot at this stage commit myself. We cannot, however, afford any further delay, and it is necessary for us to take these powers in the Bill, whether we need to use them or not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rom-ford (Mr. T. Macpherson) referred to the question of piers. We anticipate that one of them, which will provide direct access to the Exhibition, will be a permanent structure. The position regarding the others is not yet certain. I cannot at this stage give any final indication of the number of piers that may be necessary for river traffic. It is, of course, essential that the congestion of road traffic should be relieved wherever possible, and I will give sympathetic consideration to the building of piers for river traffic, if by so doing we can facilitate the transport problem as a whole. The more people we can transport by river, the more we shall be able to ease the strain on the roads.

Sir W. Darling: Will they be British Transport or London County Council boats?

Mr. Barnes: No. They are more likely to be private enterprise boats.

Sir W. Darling: I thought the London County Council might be considering such a plan.

Mr. Barnes: We are providing facilities in that direction, and I will not interrupt the political harmony prevailing here tonight.
I regret that I was not present when the senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), who is a member of the Festival authority, made his excellent contribution to the Debate. I understand he laid stress on the arts, industrial design and matters of that kind.

Those aspects have, I think, been rather over-emphasised in some of the speeches today. I should not like the outstanding scientific achievements of this country to be overlooked. Advances in the technical branches of industry, in constructive design and in production have been remarkable features of the progress of our life in modern times and must undoubtedly be displayed and interpreted by the Festival. It would be a mistake for the impression to go out from this House that we are more interested in the arts, drama, entertainment and things of that kind and do not appreciate the important contribution of science and technology in every sphere of our economic and social advance.
I have already emphasised that the works to the bridge at Charing Cross will not attract any financial grant as far as they represent permanent improvements. It is necessary, in a project of this nature, to provide facilities to enable Underground passengers to Waterloo to gain direct access to the Exhibition site. Time will not permit of the booking hall which will eventually be there being put underground. It will be put overground, but if by any chance, it is later put underground, that is the kind of expenditure for which we should have to compensate the British Transport Commission. I use that as an illustration. I do not think there are any major points of interest which I have overlooked——

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the navigational aspects of this temporary bridge over the Thames have been considered?

Mr. Barnes: Certainly, I can give that assurance. They will be examined before the bridge is built. It will be a direct Bailey bridge from Northumberland Avenue and Charing Cross Road to the Exhibition site. Under the Bill, power is given, but all points of that character will be thoroughly examined before the bridge is actually erected.

Mr. J. H. Hare: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point put to him about the concert hall which the L.C.C. are erecting and which is to be ready by 1951? I asked whether the Government would consider compensating the L.C.C. if in the speed of the erection of the work, questions like the acoustic properties have to be reconsidered.

Mr. Barnes: I cannot give an assurance of that character in a Debate of this kind. I understand that the L.C.C. will be represented, like every other body which has come to its decision and accepted these obligations. They knew the time period involved, and it represents the same kind of difficulty to the L.C.C. as to the British Transport Commission, myself and everyone else who has to carry out any work in dealing with traffic proposals. On behalf of the Exhibition authorities, I certainly cannot give any undertaking in regard to the concert hall, for which I have no responsibility whatever. The only other point is in regard to the little controversy which has developed between provincial centres and London. I always consider that London does not belong to London but is a possession of the whole British people.

Committed to a Select Committee.—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide, in connection with the Festival of Britain, 1951, for conferring further powers on the British Transport Commission and the London County Council, for the making by the Minister of Transport of grants in respect of expenses incurred by or on behalf of those bodies, for suspending or restricting the use by the public of certain streets and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Transport in making grants towards meeting—

(a) expenses incurred by or on behalf of the said Commission and the said Council respectively in or by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred on them by the said Act;
(b) expenses incurred by or on behalf of the said Council in connection with traffic arrangements certified by the Minister of Transport to be occasioned by the chief exhibition held or to be held on the south bank of the Thames as part of the said Festival."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums required by the Minister of Food to fulfil contracts or arrangements entered into by him, whether before or after the passing of the said Act, including contracts or arrangements involving commitments extending beyond the financial year current when the contracts or arrangements were made, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the said Minister to fulfil any such contracts or arrangements entered into by him, whether before or after the passing of the said Act, as may be specified in the said Act, including contracts or arrangements involving commitments extending beyond the financial year current when the contracts or arrangements were made

Orders of the Day — MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH FILMS, LATIN AMERICA

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Follick: This evening I wish to speak about the treatment that our films are receiving in Latin America. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the size of the population of Latin America. It is very important that I should bring this to the notice of the House because this territory could very well be a great export market. The official population of the Latin American countries is more than 150 million, but actually the population would be nearer 170 million or 180 million. It is a matter of great interest to this country to see that we get very fair treatment in a market which holds a great future for film production. I am afraid that at present we are not getting fair treatment. I am going to produce proof of my statements.
For various political and other reasons the British people are very favoured in the Latin American countries. The film


industry is the third biggest industry in the United States, and its export side is built up mostly in the British Commonwealth and in the Latin American markets. If the United States film industry lost those two great markets, it would become a more or less domestic home product without much export possibility. When I was in those territories last year I received complaints that our films were not receiving recognition. It was generally hidden from the population of these countries that these were British films. The word "British" was never used anywhere in this distribution and unfortunately our films in that part of the world are distributed by American companies. They have no interest in the spreading of our films in those countries where the markets would probably be lost to them as our markets increased: our films would dislodge theirs.
I received so many complaints when I was there that I took up the matter officially and this is the reply I received. This is an official letter. It is rather a long letter but it is very important:
British films distributed in Latin America, and more especially in the Caribbean area, merely carry the notation Distributed by Universal International. 'Sometimes this is prefaced by the phrase J. Arthur Rank Presents.' My contention is this: in Latin America, neither the name J. Arthur Rank, the Archers, Ealing Studios etc., convey the meaning of a British product. In a market which has consistently known but American films, any film spoken in English is automatically presumed to be of American origin. It is essential that the flat statement 'this is a British film.' or something of this nature be included as a preface to the title, sub-title and screen credits, since only in this manner can adequate safeguards be assured for the prestige accruing to British films so that it may redound to the credit of Britain and its motion picture industry directly, and indirectly to British industry as a whole. I cannot prove that distributors for Universal International have received instructions to obscure the British origin of worth-while films, but in conversation with several distributors, their indirect remarks leave me no alternative but to believe that it is to the advantage of certain sectors to preclude the possibility of British films because of their high standard gaming a foothold with Latin American distributors which might prove difficult to dislodge.
At the moment of writing, there has come into my hand the 'hand-out' for the British film 'Black Narcissus' which is being most widely publicised in this Republic. Of the hundreds of thousands of words written in the newspapers, in paid advertisements and in screen 'trailers' there has been not one single mention of the fact that this is a British

film. I enclose this for your perusal, and upon reading it, would ask you, with your knowledge of the Latin American mentality, whether there is anything in it which gives credit where credit is due.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Mosley): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but who is the writer of this interesting letter? Who is responsible for it?

Mr. Follick: If the hon. Gentleman insists I will answer but I would rather be reticent on that point.

Sir P. Hannon: The letter is important and we in this House ought to know who is responsible for this criticism.

Mr. Follick: This is written by the chargé d'affaires in one of the Latin American countries. He has sent me these hand-outs to show that there is not a single word in them to show that they relate to British films. It is no use having a man banging a pan and expecting American audiences to understand that that indicates that the film comes from Britain. The word "British"
must be clearly written.
In this country when American films come over, we get trailer after trailer in the cinemas, until it becomes very boring indeed, announcing that an American film is coming. Yet in these Latin American countries where the population is somewhere near 170 million, a terrific market, there is no indication at all that these are British films. The reason for this is very easy to understand. Latin Americans, in the first place, prefer our films because they come from us. There is a long-standing sort of liking for the British people. They always tell one how we played an important part in their country's fight for independence. The Americans themselves have been a bit too much on the dollar principle in those countries and it was only when Franklin Roosevelt introduced his "good neighbour, policy" that that has been put on one side to a certain extent.
Again, they do not want "Westerns." They have their own charras where riders are infinitely better than anything to be seen in a Western film. Again, always the dirty cad, the lounger, is a Latin-American. They even use the expression mal hombre. It is never a member of the American United States who is the dirty cad, it is always a Latin-American,


and these people get fed up with that sort of thing. We would get fed up if in the films sent over here an Engishman was always depicted as the cad. But that sort of thing is happening in Latin America and they naturally give preference to our films.
In addition to that, our films are much better and more attractive and more their idea of what a film should be. Our films contain ideas. In our films we try to solve problems. The American distributors know very well that if once we dislodge them from their position they will never get back again. That means to say that one of their greatest markets will be taken away from them and that is the reason why they conceal the fact that these are British films.
I have seen time and time again an analysis showing the different films and the voting on those films. In each case where it was a British film the voting was very much heavier in favour of that film. It is no use telling me that they know the names of British actors and actresses, because they do not. In fact, in one competition, in which there was voting for the best foreign actor on the films for that year, J. Arthur Rank got the most votes, and I never knew before that Rank was an actor. What we have to do is to insist, in the first place, as our Government are providing large sums of money for our films, that we have British distributors in Latin America in place of those now coming from the United States.

Mr. O'Brien: How are we going to do that?

Mr. Follick: The British public are providing large sums of money towards the films and it is up to us to find a way to do it. Secondly, we must insist that on every British film the words "British film" are written in plain language, so that the people will know that next week in such and such a cinema there will be a British film and then they will go to see it. That is the way to extend our markets in that great area. It is a most important market because with our films, go our ideas, the British way of life, and industry.
There are several industries which have been built up purely by the use of films. We must take care of this. We must

ensure that, though our films here are not doing too well now, we develop this market which will bring prosperity to the studios in Elstree and Pinewood. I have here a cutting which says that we are to dismiss 270 members of the staff of the studios at Denham and Pinewood. Of course we are going to dismiss them: of course they have no work. Our films are not receiving a fair chance in countries where the people would prefer to have them. The reason is plain to see. I appeal to the Board of Trade to see by every means within their power, that this is remedied and that British films claim their fair place in these most valuable markets.

8.2 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: The House is much indebted to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) for presenting this case. I am certain that the Board of Trade with its broad outlook on the question of Latin American expansion in our trade relations will give sympathetic consideration to his arguments. One of the most serious considerations before us at the moment in the development of our export trade is that of securing, as far as possible, our continued influence in the markets of Latin America. Is is true that just now we have serious restrictions arising from exchange difficulties and so on. But the use of the film as the expositor of the quality and character of British products and even as a means of indicating the nature, variety, and benevolence of British culture, play an important part in our relations.
I have a personal interest in this matter because I am the President of the British and Latin American Chamber of Commerce. Part of my public work is to develop in every possible way the sale of British products in Latin America. In a large measure we have been successful over a long series of years in maintaining good trade relations with this great sub-Continent. I am certain that the project of using the film to create an interest in our products, in our way of life and in the cultural influence which this country exercises in every part of the world, would have immense value in improving this relationship. The hon. Gentleman did not make any reference to the work of the British Council in Latin America. The British Council have been strongly


advocating the use of films in their educational work in connection with that area. In that respect, the Board of Trade would find the co-operation of the Council extremely useful in meeting the proposals submitted by the hon. Member for Loughborough.
I am a child in matters concerning the development of films. On the opposite side of the House we have hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) who has made use of the film as one of the expository means of promoting his researches both at home and abroad. I am only a simple person in this connection, but I recognise the importance of the point that in working for film distribution in Latin America, we must not he controlled from the United States, much as we respect them and grateful as we are for what they are doing in these days to enable us to escape form the morass in which, in some respects, His Majesty's Government have placed this unhappy country.
The film is of great importance in the expansion of our trade. On that account I strongly support the plea which has been made. I am sorry to say that Latin America is almost wholly unknown in this country. From me to time I have urged in this House that teaching of the Spanish language should be encouraged. I am glad to acknowledge the action of the Minister of Education in using his influence in that direction. In view of the immense importance of the great Republic of Brazil, I have urged that Portuguese should he encouraged in our secondary schools, and the Minister of Education has been responsive to the suggestion. This is a vast sub-continent embracing all these republics with all their immense natural resources and possibilities, with markets capable of development almost to an unlimited extent. Above all, there are great possibilities for harbouring the refugee population of Europe who wish to make a living for themselves in the future.
From that point of view the proposal submitted tonight is of great importance. The hon. Member for Loughborough emphasised the use of the word "British." I am grieved to say that some of my old friends on the Front Bench opposite do not attach the importance and value to the word "British" that we do on this side of the House. Let their process of conversion be hurried and complete. I

am delighted to see that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has entered the Chamber. If we ever had a statesman in modern times who has upheld the word "British" it is the Home Secretary. I wish that he had heard the stress which has been placed on that word in connection with our international relations especially with Latin America. We have had tonight a plea for the use of the film in order to develop our trade and cultural relations, and to emphasise our friendly contacts with the Latin American continent extending from Mexico down to Patagonia. That is a vast region with great possibilities for the development of a market for British products. The hon. Gentleman has rendered a great service by the speech he has made tonight.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. O'Brien: In the first instance, the best action we can take is to try to get British films shown in Britain rather than in Patagonia, Uruguay or anywhere else. Judging from the way in which things are going, we shall need every encouragement to put on the screen "J. Arthur Rank presents "over here, rather than in Latin America. I am not out of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) but obviously——

Mr. Follick: If we can have this tremendous export market we shall be able to pay stars high salaries and we shall be able to show all our own films in all our own cinemas. I believe that today, the British public prefer British films.

Mr. O'Brien: I will come to that in a minute. One or two comments should be made to put this matter in perspective. I have every sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend and also by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). We all want to see British films getting into the markets of the world, and some of us have been fighting for that ideal for many years. Why Latin America should be singled out as one of the markets into which we should make a great drive I do not know. The great English-speaking market into which our films should be sent is that of the United States, where there are 18,000 cinemas, presenting a


vast market into which at present we cannot get our films.

Mr. Follick: Can we get fair play there?

Mr. O'Brien: It is not a matter of fair play; it is a matter of hard commercial facts. In Latin America there are various technical and also psychological reasons why, in such countries, it may not always be to the interests of British films to say at all times, that they are British. I need not develop that point, but it is perfectly true that we must leave the exploitation of films in various parts of the world to the trade. The methods of exploiting or selling films in the Argentine would be quite different from the methods that would be applied in selling our films in Rumania or France. However, the idea is the same and we must get our films into the Latin American market and every other market that we can possibly develop.
It is said that trade follows the flag, and I agree with the hon. Member opposite about the immense advantage obtained and the great progress made by American industry as the result of American films. It really is phenomenal, and there is hardly an industry in the United States that has not greatly benefited as the result of American films We could and should do the same, but I want to mention that the greatest enemy of the British film industry at the present time—perhaps not an enemy by
design, but an unwitting one—is not the Board of Trade but the Treasury.
The Treasury is following a policy which is bound to bring utter ruination to the British film industry in a very short time. My hon. Friend should realise that the British Government are taking nearly £40 million a year from the British film industry by way of Entertainment Duty. Over one-third of the entire revenue of the industry is being taken away when the industry is fighting for its existence. Why it should have this basic obligation is something which is beyond the understanding of most of us. We are told that people in the industry are unemployed, but we cannot make films without money and we cannot have markets unless we have films, and so on.
On the other hand, the currency difficulties of the Latin American countries

are many, as are those of parts of Europe, and the earnings of British films abroad remain frozen in those particular countries. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I offer my belated congratulations on his appointment will I know bring to his new Department all the skill and experience that he gave to the post which he has just vacated. I am sure that he will have a little more entertainment in his new Department in his dealings with film actors, than in looking at hard-faced doctors. I am sure that in his new post at the Board of Trade he will do a great job of work for the British film industry, since the President himself has taken a lead in the matter and has gone out of his way to apply his mind and experience in helping to solve many of the problems which are unfortunately pressing upon the industry.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that we should have more films. By the end of next week there will be nearly 1,000 people dismissed from British studios, five-sixths of them being members of my own organisation In that respect the industry has a very dim future. It is no use talking about crisis after crisis in British films or crying "stinking fish," when we in the industry, under the leadership of the President of the Board of Trade and his working party, are getting down to the fundamental difficulties and problems of the industry with a view to putting it on a definitely permanent, sound and efficient basis. In the process there will be a great deal of difficulty and heart-aching, but Latin America is only one part of the world which we should exploit. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do all we can to see that the films which the people of these countries like are supplied by this country, but I beg of him not to underrate the difficulties of our salesmen abroad. Even in Latin America we are trying to encourage the British industry to keep its head above water. Not only are we doing that in Latin America, but in other parts of the world as well.

Sir P. Hannon: With the leave of the House, may I express my apologies to the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade? I had it in my mind to offer him my congratulations at the beginning of my speech.

Mr. Follick: I should have done so, too.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Reeves: We are grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this subject tonight. I realise that it is only one aspect of a much bigger problem and that it is not a problem which has suddenly occurred. So far as the British film industry is concerned, this is a long-standing problem. There are some who say that it is only within the last few years that the British film industry has awakened to the part it can play, both at home and abroad, in presenting what we are now pleased to call the British way of life. The Americans learned this many years ago and they blazed a trail all over the world. There is no doubt that the American film was the forerunner of the trade representatives of a whole series of American industries, which entered the various markets of the world and have, in many ways, almost completely captured them. We have to bear that fact in mind when discussing this matter.
In the South American Republics the major part of industry is practically in American control. We have American distributors and a good many cinemas in this part of the world are owned by Americans. It is natural that American pictures should be preferred because they have their own friends on the spot. My hon. Friend has made the suggestion that we should attach to our films an indication that they are British made. There are two ways of looking at that. People might say, "Well, of course we know that because it is such a beautiful product." On the other hand, they might say, "My goodness, and cannot we see it!" Our films must speak for themselves. Their quality must be such that people want to see them. If they are of that standard, they will gradually work their way by sheer quality into the markets of the world.

Mr. Follick: How are the people to know that these beautiful films are British unless we say they are British?

Mr. Reeves: I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Americans have never gone to the length of saying "This is an American film." Everybody knows it is an American film, and we want everybody to know that it is a British film.

Because it is of such a character it will speak for itself. It seems to me that to put "British made" on a film is rather the wrong way of doing it.
There is no doubt that during the last few years the Board of Trade have done a great deal to assist the British film industry. That is not because it happens to be a British industry, but because we depend so much upon the film for presenting abroad the story of British life. It is becoming more and more important that the British film should be seen on foreign screens. The Board of Trade have got to do a great deal more to assist this hard-pressed industry. Because of its wide-flung influences, American competition is terrific. We cannot play to such a vast population as they can. They can earn all their costs from the home market and sweep in the profits from their foreign distribution. We cannot do that because our population is very much smaller. We cannot afford to spend the money that the Americans can on films. That is a disability, and that is why the Government must encourage by all possible means the production of good films in this country, and assist the industry to put their films, not only on British screens, as my hon. Friend who has spent so much time in the industry said, but also on the screens of other countries.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I agree with the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) and particularly with those made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien). I should like to put what I have to say into four sentences.
There is not the slightest chance that by our exports of films to South America, or to all the rest of the world, we can make the British film industry pay. That is the first sentence. At the moment, we have not got our own British film industry, and I think that the correct figures are that something considerably less than 35 per cent. of the films shown in this country are British, and over 65 per cent. are foreign. That is the second sentence. I agree that the Board of Trade have done more under this dispensation—and I welcome my hon. Friend's accession to that Department, coming as he does with all the conspicuous success that he and


his former colleague have had in relation to the medical service—but I say that, despite the fact that the Board of Trade have done so well, they have still not really tackled the problem. That is the third sentence. The fourth is that it seems to me that, as my hon. Friend has said, an approach must be made to the Treasury on the lines which everybody concerned with this subject has approved.
Not only my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher)—who is, as is well known, a vice-chairman of the A.B.C. circuit—not only my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham, and not only Mr. George Elvin, the other trade union chief concerned, but also the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and Lord Swinton in the other place yesterday, and Mr. Arthur Rank and other representatives of the industry, have urged that, in view of the fact that the Government make £38 million a year out of this industry, a proportion of that sum should be remitted to the industry. This should be done in order to make sure that we have our own British film industry and also that we have, as I believe we certainly can have, a British film industry which will lead the European industry, and fulfil the purposes which my hon. Friend has in mind tonight.

8.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): May I begin by thanking all the hon. Members who congratulated me on my new appointment? In starting a new job, it is always encouraging to begin with good will, and I appreciate it very much. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) painted an alluring picture of the pleasures I may find in the film industry. As he knows, my right hon. Friend takes a very close personal interest in this matter himself, and I suspect that my work will lie in more pedestrian though, I hope, no less useful fields like cotton, furniture, and so on. Therefore, while not, perhaps, having the benefit or the pleasures, I may avoid some of the temptations. If, however, I do enter this difficult field, I shall look to my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham to keep my feet in straight paths.

Mr. O'Brien: It is a great responsibility.

Mr. Edwards: Obviously, I cannot take up tonight the points raised about Purchase Tax; it would not be proper for me to do so. I should like to make it plain that I entirely agree about the importance of the film as a cultural medium, and also about the importance of Latin America as a market for British films. Anything that we can do at the Board of Trade to help, we will do. The recently amalgamated departments of Commercial Relations and Treaties and Export Promotion exist for the very purpose of helping industry and trade of any kind in any part of the world. While we are always wanting to make that organisation better, it serves, as it is, a very useful purpose to our industry and trade.
Having said that, I must turn to the point put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick). Let me say at once that I will look into the points made in the official letter which he quoted. As a matter of interest we might, I think, just see the extent to which we have been able to do trade in Latin America. British films appear to have obtained a good foothold in those markets, and, as far as I can see on the figures, to be gaining ground. Most of the business has been done by two British companies, General Films Distributors, for the Rank organisation, and Patheacute. Since the latter part of 1946, they have had a total of 69 films released in all the Latin American countries taken together. The total revenue which these films have earned amounts to the equilavent of £312,000. It is not possible to make any estimate of the Proportion of screen time which British films have secured in these countries, but, on a rough estimate. there were about 200 American films released last year, as compared with 25 British, and about 100 from Mexico and Argentina, who are the next strongest competitors after the Americans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough thought that the right thing to do would be for British companies to set up their own distributing agencies. So far, the more important work in those countries has been done by the Rank Organisation, and all their films have been distributed through American companies. They seem to be satisfied with the results, and believe that, for the time being, at


any rate, this is the most profitable way of trading in those particular countries. In time, the future development of our trade may possibly justify the setting up of our own local distributing organisations, but I think that is a matter which we must leave for the companies to judge for themselves.
I ask my hon. Friend and the House to consider the economic aspect of setting up a separate distributing agency of one's own. I well recollect what I learned from Adam Smith, who, in the first chapter of "The Wealth of Nations," amongst other things says that the division of labour is limited by the size of the market. Here is a case in point. It would be a very expensive business to set up new distributing agencies in overseas countries, and our film companies, who have only comparatively recently started to export to those particular countries, certainly have not the resources at the present time to embark on this. I feel that in a matter of this kind the companies must themselves balance the pros and cons and decide what will be the most profitable way to operate in any particular market.
Now I come to a particular point to which my hon. Friend drew our attention—that the British films are not properly identified in the Latin-American markets. As I understand, all our films are released with sub-titles in Spanish or Portuguese, as, indeed, are the American, and all the films carry their usual trade marks, with all the original credit titles in full—to the artists, the technicians, the British production companies, and the studios. That, I think, so far as it goes, is good.
If the information which my hon. Friend has really is to the contrary, then, of course, I will look into it, but I would say to him that it does seem to me that it may be that in this business of the clearer identification of British films there may be some progress to be made, and we should be happy to discuss this particular aspect of the problem with the production association at any time. It is important that British films, in spite of what has been said to the contrary, should be known to be British, because although we may have to take a certain blame for the bad, we shall then be able to take the credit for the good; and in comparison—perhaps, it is being ultra-British to say it—I should have thought the films we have been making in recent times

stood comparison with the best films being made in any other country in the world.

Mr. Follick: That is true.

Mr. Edwards: It is desirable to identify British films, and I will see whether there is any way in which the Board of Trade and the British Film Producers' Association can improve on the present position.

Orders of the Day — EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING)

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I desire to raise a totally different question relating to the Ministry of Labour. Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary for being in his place at what is, I fear, inconveniently short notice for him; but he has, with his habitual courtesy, responded to a telephone message. The point I desire to raise, and which I have already notified to the right hon. Gentleman, is the administration by his Department of its system of training grants. I desire to do it in two ways, first by making certain general remarks on the administration of the scheme, and secondly, by way of illustration, by referring to two specific cases in respect of which I have been in prolonged correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman and his Minister, and which I have notified to him I did intend to raise tonight.
The scheme dates back a number of years, and was designed and intended to try to make up to young men whose training for their careers had been inevitably dislocated by the incidence of war—to make up to them by providing training for as much as possible of the time that had been lost in the service of their country. To be more specific, I would venture to refer the House to the long statement made on 25th March, 1943, by the present Foreign Secretary, then Minister of Labour, in announcing the scheme. I shall not trouble the House with most of what he said, but I do desire to refer specifically to certain words he used in describing the scheme. He said:
It will apply to those whose further education or training has been prevented or interrupted by their war service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1943; Vol. 387, c. 1739.]


The House will, appreciate that those words are wide.
My case tonight, in brief, is that the right hon. Gentleman's Department, in the administration of that scheme, have narrowed it by the application of certain arbitrary rules, and that as a consequence certain people who might well have thought—and rightly thought—that they were within the ambit of the scheme, have been excluded, and, in my submission to the House, hardship has been done. The rule which in particular has caused a great deal of hardship is this. The House will appreciate that the alternative conditions required to be satisfied by the words I quoted were training "prevented or interrupted." Where it has been interrupted I do not think very much difficulty has arisen. But in the cases where it has been prevented the difficulty—I do appreciate the Department's difficulty—has been in deciding whether, in fact, such training has been prevented or not.
In many cases, bearing in mind the circumstances of war, the only evidence that training for a career has been prevented is the statement of the applicant himself or of his family. I do feel that the Department has been a little oppressive in insisting, in a number of cases, on additional evidence of that. I think it ignores the circumstances of war. It ignores the fact that the young men with whom we are concerned were growing up in circumstances in which they knew that at the age of 18 they would be going to the Forces, and that, therefore, many of them found it very difficult to settle down in the preliminary stages of a professional career; and many others, to their credit, devoted a great deal of the time that they had to preparing for their Service careers by joining pre-service units, and spending a great deal of time in them. It does seem to me, from the experience that I have had in the considerable number of cases about which I have corresponded with the right hon. Gentleman's Department, that the Department, by insisting that there must be more evidence of preliminary steps having been taken before Service—preliminary steps to prepare for a career—have, in fact, prejudiced unfairly the chances of successful application in a number of cases.
Now I will quote—for I have the permission of the young man and his family

so to do—one of the two cases which I have already notified to the right hon. Gentleman, because it seems to me to illustrate very vividly the difficulty and the unfairness which the rule I have referred to does impose—and, no doubt, in other cases in the experience of hon. Members. The young man in question is Mr. B. G. M. Ulrich, of 35, St. James's Road, Surbiton. He was born on the 5th December, 1925, and consequently was just under 14 years of age at the outbreak of war. His father has been quite clear that from his earliest years it was intended that this young man should be trained as a chartered secretary, and his career was planned to that end. In view of the fact that when he left school the war was raging, and it was obvious—and, indeed, he had every intention—that before very long he would be serving in the Armed Forces, it was thought useless for him to commence the academic side of his professional training and, therefore, he went into the office of a local company where he did clerical work by way of gaining practical experience; and he, to his credit be it said, spent a great deal of time with the Air Training Corps and in attending night classes at a local school. He applied to join the Royal Air Force for air crew duties and, having served from June, 1944, to November, 1947, was demobilised.
On demobilisation, he applied for a grant under this scheme with a view to studying for the examination of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries. By way of further corroboration of evidence of his intentions, he, prior to demobilisation, unsuccessfully applied to the R.A.F. authorities for a Class B release after the end of hostilities with a view to taking his examination. I have been, as the right hon. Gentleman probably thinks, in almost insufferably prolonged correspondence with him on this subject, but he has firmly maintained the Departmental view in the matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the second paragraph—I will quote any other paragraph if he so wishes—of his letter to me on 5th January of this year in respect of this case, in which he states:
This type of case, where there was a considerable period between the applicant's leaving school and joining the Forces but in which he did no organised studies, always present difficulty. I think it is reasonable that such cases should be looked at closely as obviously


awards cannot be made merely on the applicant's statement that he always intended to pursue a certain line of study. While, therefore, we try to interpret the Scheme as generously as possible, these cases must be decided on their individual merits.
He goes on to recite and accurately to state the facts of the position, and says:
In the circumstances, Mr. Ulrich cannot be regarded as satisfying the eligibility conditions relevant to his case, i.e., that he was prevented from beginning organised professional studies before his national service, because of the intervention of that service.
That seems to pose the case with complete clarity. The word of the applicant and of his father, with some corroboration both from the aspect of the practical work and from the point of view of the applicant applying for a Class B release, is in sufficient. That is to say that there is what lawyers would call an onus on the applicant to establish beyond reasonable doubt his intentions to pursue these lines of study, and his own word and that of his father are not to be accepted as sufficient evidence.
I feel for the reasons which I have given that this ruling is a rule which can and, as I think in this case, has caused manifest injustice, because it seems to me that this young man acted as was reasonable and patriotic in the circumstances of the time, and that it is extremely oppressive of the hon. Gentleman's Department to say, "If only you had not done training with the Air Training Corps but had done preliminary training for the examination of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries we would have given you the grant, but because you spent your time in pre-Service training and in practical work in connection with your profession, we shall not accept your evidence that you intended to take up this career."

Mr. Swingler: I should like the hon. Gentleman to address himself to this question. Supposing the Ministry of Labour had accepted, on such a basis, the word of the applicant about his former intentions, or the word of his parents, how would he prevent the scheme from being open to wide abuse? Surely, if that were so, quite a large number of people could claim that they had intentions of undertaking some kind of further education or training and, if there were no other conditions and no evidence had to be produced, the Ministry of Labour would then have to accept these

cases which in itself might lead to injustice.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interruption, which I know is meant to be helpful, because it enables me to put more clearly perhaps than I have been able to the point which I have in mind. The point is twofold. In the first place, every day our courts of law act on the verbal evidence, without corroboration, of individuals as to facts of this sort. Their evidence is weighed and often accepted. Secondly, when we are dealing with a young man who has beyond doubt suffered a great inconvenience to his career by serving, in this case, for nearly four years in the Armed Forces of the Crown, it does not seem to me unreasonable to say that if he subsequently desires to take up training for a profession—and the number of people who so desire is limited—he should be given a grant to establish him in that profession. Nothing can make up to him for the loss of four vital years in his training. As all hon. Members know, an interruption at that period of life inevitably sets back the time in which a young man can be qualified for a profession or capable of earning his living at it. Therefore, where one desires training I think it reasonable to accept his word.
I do not think that the grants are so unduly generous as to tempt people who do not want in fact to train for a career. These professional trainings are arduous; they demand a great deal of work and application; and I do not think there is any risk at all that people would make false statements in this matter in order to obtain a grant for a very limited period, if they were not seriously trying to fit themselves for a profession. If there be any risk, as of course there must be in any administrative scheme, I would prefer to risk the Ministry of Labour occasionally rather than risk doing an injustice to a young man who, whatever else may be true or untrue, has given up some years of his life and risked that life in the service of his country. If one must bear these risks, I would make clear that I would prefer to balance it in that way. That is the case for Mr. Ulrich which illustrates my initial proposition.
The second case which I desire to quote illustrates a slightly different aspect


of the matter, but clearly, to my mind, illustrates the rather narrow way in which the right hon. Gentleman's Department is administering these matters. This is the case of Mr. C. G. Wyatt, of 25, Grosvenor Gardens, Kingston-on-Thames. He has three-and-a-half years service with the Armed Forces to his credit, and he emerged with a wound in respect of which he has been awarded a 20 per cent. disability pension by the Ministry of Pensions, and is also, as a consequence, on the hon. Gentleman's own Department's register of disabled persons. He is, therefore, again a person who has not only given years but has suffered physical injury in the service of his country. This young man was demobilised last year, and from 13th September last year has been on his own initiative taking a course in wireless telegraphy at the Wireless Telegraphy Training College at Earls Court.
A certificate which I sent to the Department indicates that he has made admirable progress. I should add that his disability prevented him from following his pre-war avocation, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's Department do not dispute that in certain circumstances he is entitled to a grant. But what they have sought to do—and this does seem to me to be oppressive—is to say that he shall not have a grant in connection with training in wireless telegraphy. I shall put their point of view in a moment, but generally their attitude is that a young man who has on his own initiative started this training, in which he has made good progress, and in which despite his disability he can be efficient, is not to be permitted to have a grant to pursue studies in wireless telegraphy.
The right hon. Gentleman wrote to me, as he always does, a very full and reasoned letter on the subject, and I desire to refer to it. In his letter of 26th November, 1948, he says:
The short point is that there are, at present, persons qualified in wireless telegraphy who are finding it difficult to obtain posts and, for this reason, training under the Scheme for 2nd Class Postmaster-General's Certificate is confined to men who have served as radio officers in the Merchant Navy and hold only the wartime special certificate, and who wish to reenter the Merchant Navy. I think you will agree that it would be most unwise to encourage men to take a course of training for an occupation in which the prospects of employment after training are so remote.

That raises two points. First of all, Mr. Wyatt does not consider that his chances of obtaining employment after training are remote. He is a very capable young man who has investigated this matter at considerable length and in considerable detail, and he has satisfied himself that provided he passes the course sufficiently creditably he will obtain employment. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that no young man in his senses is likely to undertake a difficult course with the prospect of obtaining no employment at the end of it. His Department think they know better. Of course, it may well be that there is some difficulty in placing people in this trade nowadays, but that is no reason why somebody who is already undergoing a course is not to receive a grant.
I concede that were we starting this matter de novo, were the right hon. Gentleman's Department advising this young man at the beginning as to what to do, they would not only he within their rights but would be doing their duty in advising him to take some other line, in which they thought it would be easier to obtain a post. But where one is dealing with a young man whose heart is obviously set on this particular training, who may set out on it and doing very well in it, then it seems to me that those considerations do not arise. His case is strengthened by the fact that he is on the Disabled Persons' Register, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman's Department will in any event be under an obligation to make special efforts to find him some employment in due course. That is, after all, the object of the Disabled Persons' Register.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards) indicated assent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. Where a young man has had the enterprise to train himself for something physically possible to him, in which despite his disability he is doing well, it seems wrong to refuse him the grant to which he is admittedly entitled simply because it is thought that at the end of the course he may have difficulty in finding employment, although he himself, the person most directly concerned, who has inquired at the college about


vacancies and received what he regards as quite satisfactory information, is confident that he can find employment. Here again it seems that the Ministry is applying the scheme with that degree of restriction and oppressiveness which diminishes its benefit and value in particular and, in my view, very deserving cases.
I have gone on longer than I intended, and I do not desire to weary the House with further cases, although I suppose that there is not a Member of this House who has not had similar cases in his constituency. My plea to the right hon. Gentleman is this: Do not spoil this magnificent scheme—which I admit at once has conferred great benefit upon a large number of young men, and which has been of the greatest social value—by permitting a narrow and, in the worst sense of the term, bureaucratic attitude to be applied to its administration. I say quite frankly to the right hon. Gentleman that I feel that the two cases I have quoted still merit reconsideration, although I have, by correspondence and Parliamentary Questions, carried them as far as and perhaps further than the tolerance of the House would permit.
While I think that those two specific cases merit reconsideration, it seems to me that still more is reconsideration merited in the whole general administration of the scheme. I suggest that a greater willingness to accept the word of applicants as to their intentions, and a greater willingness to give freedom to applicants in training for the career of their choice, will greatly increase the value of the scheme, and, what is more important, will enable this country to make up in some small degree to the young men who have served her for what they have lost in time and injury in her service.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I should like to say just a few words in support of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). With most of his views on Ministry of Labour questions I disagree, but I am very glad on this occasion to support him in this plea to the Ministry of Labour, and to take the opportunity of saying that I accent the answer he made to the question I put to him during his speech—an

aspect which must be faced in a straightforward manner.
There are obviously great risks on both sides. What we are suffering under at the moment are what are no longer risks but certainties of hardship in particular cases, which are happening because of the restrictive conditions of the scheme. On the other side it is quite clear that if merely the word of the individual or parent were accepted as sufficient evidence, the scheme would then be open to abuse. We have to face that fact. It is quite certain that if no evidence that a beginning has been made of education or training for which the individual is applying had to be produced, then any ex-Service man could say that he had had the intention, which in fact he had not, to undertake a certain career, or to enter a university, or whatever it was, and the Minister of Labour would be bound to accept his word or that of his parents and allow a grant under the scheme.
Whilst I agree this is a magnificent scheme, the idea of which was magnificent in its inception, the trouble from the very beginning has been that the whole stress was on the question of interruption. That is borne out by the quotation made by the hon. Member from the speech of the Minister of Labour in the Coalition Government. To begin with, the object was simply to assist ex-Service men whose educational careers or training had been interrupted. The provision to deal with the prevention of education was then introduced, but the conditions laid down for eligibility made it very difficult to prove one way or the other whether or not a man had been prevented from undertaking a certain course of education or training. I wish that the thing had been settled very much wider than that, and that the right had been given to any ex-Service man who wanted to undertake some course of education to get a grant under the scheme and to undertake that course, without introducing the idea of interruption or prevention.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames when he points out that these were men who had made a very definite sacrifice of years of their lives and separation from their families. They had a right


to certain things to rehabilitate themselves in civil life on coming out of the Forces. Whilst the hon. Member was speaking, I had in mind a case in my constituency of a young man who was doing engineering work before the war, who went into the Army and was put into the Royal Army Medical Corps. While he was there he acquired an interest in chiropody, and when he came out of the Army, instead of going into his old job, he made the financial sacrifice of giving up his job to study chiropody. He applied under the scheme, but was turned down for any grant to assist him to go to the University of Birmingham to take a professional degree. He happened to be able, after a period of time, to obtain a grant from the county education authority. Cases of this kind could have been brought within these further education and training schemes.
I entirely agree that so far as administration of these schemes is concerned the grants and awards have mainly been made to those who could prove interruption, and they have not been made in other cases because there was no proof, although plenty of people knew the applications to be true. Therefore, a sense of injustice has been created among many who regarded themselves as eligible under the scheme. I wish from these Benches to support the plea that has been made to the Minister to carry out the administration of this scheme a little more generously, particularly in the kind of cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.

9.2 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I wish to add a few words to the plea that has been made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I thought that he made a very reasonable speech in terms which all must echo from their personal knowledge, from the knowledge of those things we are bound to pick up if we do our constituency work in any way approaching a model for this type of case. I can speak from my own experience of these things, and I appeal to the Minister to instruct his Department to interpret these rules and regulations in the widest possible way. I myself have been interviewed by some of

these people, and I would not like the impression to get about that they do the thing badly. The experience of my constituents shows that the Ministry has on the whole handled the matter very well. That is shown by the experience of many of my colleagues who were in the Services, and by relatives of mine, all of whom have benefited and are now citizens leading a normal professional life. This work has been very good work indeed, but it is obvious that we do come across cases like those quoted by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
We have heard the word "abuse" mentioned, but I must confess that I cannot see any question of an abuse of these facilities arising. I cannot imagine a man who goes into the Services round about the age of 18 or 20 not having new ideas formed during his Service life. We hope that the period of Service will be a civilised thing, and that it will help to prepare these men to become responsible citizens later in life. It is obvious that if these boys travel to East Africa or other parts of the world, for example, their point of view is widened and they get wider interests, which can even change the ideas they have about the job they want to do in after life. I have seen that happen time and again. We should give every facility to let that development take place, because we shall get better citizens as a result. I gather from older friends that these regulations were interpreted in a much wider sense after the previous war.
I recall the case of one of my friends who went into that war towards its end. I do not think he had any settled ideas about a profession. At any rate, when he came out of the Army he had not the necessary qualifications for a settled profession, and so he decided to take up a textile course. He found that he could not use his textile knowledge, and so he went into some other activity. At the moment he is a member of a very learned profession in this City. It shows that that experience has helped to make him the man he is today was not useless. I could give further examples, such as a man who is now an eminent professor, whose life before entering the 1914–18 war was very humble compared with what it is today. We should give every facility to these people to widen their knowledge and to change their minds. If there is one in a thousand who abuses


the privilege of embarking on several years of training for some profession or calling, then all well and good; he has not only wasted our time but he has also wasted his own.

9.7 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr Ness Edwards): I am sure no one can complain about the manner in which this problem has been tackled tonight, and I thank the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for giving me the opportunity to state to the House the exact position in relation to this very important matter affecting the lives of so many young men and women who have done their service in the Forces. I should like to deal first with two points raised later in the Debate. In the first place, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) is quite wrong when he says that prevention is not a condition for receipt of a grant. There are thousands upon thousands of cases where people have received grants because the war has prevented them from embarking upon training. Prevention is a condition for the receipt of a grant.

Mr. Willis: But in how many cases have people been refused a grant?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I suggest that hon. Members should wait to hear the story because they will then be satisfied that this Government and the country can take very great pride indeed in this scheme. It was suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) that there has been a very narrow interpretation and that the treatment is almost unsympathetic.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I did not say that.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If one narrows the scheme, one is unsympathetic. I have met the officials who deal with these applications, and I have requested them to regard the file of every applicant, not as a file of papers, but as a young man or woman who has sacrificed much for the country whose future life will depend upon the decision that is taken. I have asked the officers to treat every one of these applicants as they would their own sons and daughters, and I am satisfied

from experience that this is the manner in which they approach these applications.
As to the second point, it is an instruction to them that wherever there is doubt whether an applicant is within the scheme or outside it, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the applicant. That is an instruction to every officer dealing with these applications. In these borderline cases when it is a matter of individual merit and it is very difficult to obtain a 100 per cent. decision, these officers are approaching the applications with every sense of fairness and are trying to do what they regard as right for both the applicant and the country.
It is suggested that there is hardly any danger of abuse. I am sorry to say that even ex-Service men tell lies sometimes. I am afraid that a number of applications—though not very many—have been based upon fabrication and not truth. That is not the generality, but I am sure that the House would not agree to our deliberately and blindly throwing away the State's money to people who are not entitled to the benefits of the scheme.
My position in this matter is rather difficult. This was a very bold and imaginative scheme produced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour, assisted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), who was my predecessor. They laid down the terms and conditions which have to be applied. We are considering not a new scheme but something which was laid down in 1943 by the Coalition Government and accepted wholeheartedly by the House as satisfactory and just. It is that scheme which I have the responsibility of administering. Wherever possible, applicants are accepted for the scheme, even if it means stretching the rules a bit, but if they are clearly outside it, I should not be doing my duty to the House if I conceded grants to them.
I want now to look at the two schemes which have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames dealt with two schemes——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Two cases.

Mr. Ness Edwards: And two schemes. He dealt first with the case of Mr. Wyatt. I am sorry to have to mention the man's name. In that instance, the hon. Member


dealt with the case of the vocational training scheme. As the House knows, there is the training scheme for the industrial worker and the further education and training scheme in the academic section, and in between comes the vocational training scheme. Mr. Wyatt's application came under the vocational training scheme. It will be of interest to the House to know that in the last 18 months there have been only three cases of complaint under that scheme and only those three cases have been brought to our attention. The decision of the Department was reversed in two cases, and that means that only one case under the vocational training scheme which has been brought to our notice in the last 18 months has been rejected.
Unfortunately that is the case which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has raised. It is an important fact that this is the only case brought to our notice in 18 months which has been turned down, and I ask the House to realise that in those circumstances it is a record of which the Ministry has every right to be proud. It is a great thing that we can say that only one case is outstanding. It is true that Mr. Wyatt had a desire to become a radio operator. He is entitled to a grant and we have never refused him a grant, but what we say is that we ought not to give him a grant for a profession which is overcrowded and for an employment in which we have 85 men who have been trained and are still unplaced.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How many of those 85 are on the disabled persons' register and are therefore entitled to priority in placing?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot give the exact figure offhand, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that a considerable number of them are registered disabled persons. That was our position, and I advised the hon. Gentleman to try to persuade Mr. Wyatt to see the Department and find a type of employment for which he would like to be trained so that we could give him the maximum assistance. We are advised in these matters not by some civil servants living in ivory towers but by the advisory committees which were set up. The advice from the advisory committee on this subject is, "Do not train any more men for this

type of job." We have therefore used the machinery to which this House is a party. Is it suggested that because I am pressed in an individual case like this I ought to turn down the advice—it is tantamount to a decision—of advisory committees set up, not by me, but by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epsom?
I have very great sympathy with Mr. Wyatt. We are prepared to give him a grant for training for any employment in which he is keen to take a chance but we should be wasting the country's money and deluding this young man if we assisted him to continue a form of training when there is very little hope of placing him in such employment. I am sorry that our copy-book is blotted by this one case over the last 18 months. I should have preferred to see it completely white.
I come now to the case of Mr. Ulrich, a case under the further education and training scheme, the upper reaches as it were. This young man left school when he was 14½ without taking his school certificate, without getting the basic qualification for the career for which he wanted to train. For 3½ years after that he did nothing at all to suit himself or to qualify himself to undertake training in the career which he now says was the career of his choice. Does the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames wish to intervene?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This young man did the practical office work which, in his father's considered opinion, was a useful preparation. Also he attended night school, which the right hon. Gentleman did not say. He also fitted himself for service with the Armed Forces.

Mr. Ness Edwards: But he did nothing at all to qualify himself for the basic examination in all this time, and he had three and a half years in which to do it. I would not count that against him altogether, but it is a condition of the scheme that he must have the basic educational qualifications. I am being invited to break a condition of the scheme. However, as I say, I would not hold that wholly against him if he could say, "I discussed this matter with my school master" or "I discussed it with the head teacher of the night school." If he could produce evidence of that sort, it would


be some independent evidence which would perhaps lead me to say that in this case the training had commenced and that it was really the war which prevented him from taking his basic examination.
However, I have had no evidence of that kind placed before me, and one must in such cases get some evidence of intention. In this case it is not so much interruption as prevention. If I could get some independent evidence that there ever was the intention, some fact to get hold of, it would be possible to do as I have done in other cases, where I have stretched the scheme to pull in those boys. Where the local headmaster has written to say. "This was the boy's intention, I discussed it with him before he left school," I have accepted that evidence. But to accept evidence four or five years afterwards—in this case much more—as to what was the intention seven or eight years ago, written now by the father, with not a single fact to support it as far as I can see, is asking too much. I should not be discharging my responsibilities to this House properly if I laid it down as a matter of principle that a father can write a letter to the Ministry saying that it was the intention of his son eight years ago to become a doctor or an architect, without the basic educational qualification, without a school certificate, without doing any organised studies leading to that certificate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested this evening what I do not think he suggested to me in our previous correspondence, namely, the kind of evidence which he says might satisfy him; for example, from a schoolmaster or possibly—he did not suggest this, but I suggest it to him—from the firm with which the boy worked. I have not asked for such evidence because it had not been suggested to me that that was the sort of evidence required, and I do not say that it is obtainable, but if it is, will he even now reconsider it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am always prepared to reconsider any case in the light of new evidence from any hon. Member of this House. I have reversed decisions hundreds of times on the basis of new evidence. I do not want to invite hon. Members to submit that, but they have the right to do it, and they would only

be doing their duty by their constituents if they did so. I give the assurance quite freely that if new evidence is brought on any case, not only on this case, I will reconsider the decision.
So that the House may know exactly what has been done, let me give some figures. Of all the applications since 1945, we have made 129,638 grants. The money spent on this scheme has been well spent, and it is a scheme of which this House has every reason to be proud. I heard some comparisons of what happened after the first world war with what has been done under this scheme, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and to those associated with him in the Ministry of Labour that, when they conceived this scheme, they conceived something which has proved a blessing to these 129,000 students in this country who have benefited so much from it.

Mr. Willis: Could my right hon. Friend say how many have been rejected?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am coming to that. Of the 167,166 net applications, there have been awarded 129,638 grants. The rejections amounted to 33,402. Of the net applications 77 per cent. have had awards, 20 per cent, have been rejected and 3 per cent. are outstanding. When one has regard to the vast field covered, this is a highly satisfactory result. I was looking at the graphs today which show that the right hon. Gentleman started giving grants just after 1943. At that time a number of cases of men discharged on medical grounds came under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman. The graphs show that the present percentage of rejections is not more than in those days when the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with cases of men turned out of the Army on medical grounds, and about which there was not such a passage of time over which to get evidence as to either intention or interruption.
In order that the House may be satisfied about the general procedure, let me explain it. An applicant applies to the appointments office in the region in which he lives, from whom he gets a decision. If that decision is against him and he writes a letter to the appointments office, his application is sent to the Ministry. The matter is then looked at again. The decision may be reversed or upheld. If the applicant writes a further letter to the


Minister in disagreement, should the decision have gone against him, the case can be referred by the Department to the Reading tribunal, presided over by Lord Reading with the able assistance of Miss Florence Hancock, Professor Low, and a number of other people about whose sense of fairness there can be no complaint from either side of the House. In cases of very great doubt they make a decision one way or the other. I am prepared to submit the case of Ulrich to the Reading tribunal for their decision. That is one way.
In other cases the applicant puts his case to his Member, who writes to my right hon. Friend or to myself, and one of us sees the whole of the file relating to the case. In many cases, in view of new information contained in the letter from the Member, decisions have been reversed. Very often the Member knows what to say and the applicant does not. In other cases, of course, we confirm the decision. But whenever there is a genuine doubt, my right hon. Friend or I refer the case to the Reading tribunal. There is only one case, I think, in which a Member has communicated with us when we have refused to put it to the Reading tribunal, because we thought that we should be wasting the tribunal's time. Can anything be more obviously fair than that method of administration?
I assure the House, and do so without blushing, that if there is one job of which I am proud, it is the job we are doing here. We are giving young men a square deal under this scheme. I agree there might be a case for looking again at the scheme as a whole, but that would have to come before Parliament. The present scheme, however, has been accepted by the House and I know of nothing being administered by the Government more generously and humanely than is this scheme by the Ministry of Labour. I rest my case on that. We are doing a good job of work, something of which all of us, on both sides of the House, have the right to be proud.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not want to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but there was something in his concluding words which I did not properly hear. Did he say that he had submitted the Ulrich case to the Reading tribunal or that he would do so?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have made, in effect, two offers. First, I am prepared to listen to, or to consider, any new evidence which the hon. Gentleman cares to submit. Second, I am prepared to submit the case as it stands to the Reading tribunal. Perhaps he will let me know, when convenient, which course he would prefer. I want to do the right thing and not to be unfair to Mr. Ulrich. I do not want to penalise him. If he is entitled to this, he shall have it. If it means stretching the case a bit, let him have it. If the hon. Gentleman can give me any new evidence—which would be his best course—I am quite prepared to consider it.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: I should like to say a few remarks as the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to me in most generous terms. The House is indebted to him for giving us a full explanation of how he is carrying out the scheme. I think the House in general will be satisfied with his explanation and grateful to him for giving it. It will help us all in dealing with applications in our constituencies. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it was well worth while my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raising this matter and giving us the opportunity of this Debate. I think my hon. Friend can be well satisfied that, since he opened his case, the Minister has given him some grounds on which he can work. I trust that on reconsideration both cases will be admitted.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Austin: I hope my right hon. Friend will not find it inconvenient if I follow him. No discourtesy is intended, but I rose at the same time as he rose. I have shared the experience of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who raised this subject in such reasonable terms tonight. I have had quite a number of failures and a very small minority of admissions into the scheme. The revelation made by my right hon. Friend tonight that there has been only one rejection in the vocational training scheme in the past 18 months came as a great surprise to me because, in endeavouring to keep up with the figures, I take the trouble to look at the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" and if my right hon. Friend is right, my views about rejections


have been confined to the further education scheme only and not to the vocational scheme.

Mr. Ness Edwards: May I correct what may be a misapprehension? I referred to the vocational training scheme and to three cases brought to our notice at headquarters. I hope my hon. Friend will not confuse that with the further education scheme, details of which appear in the "Gazette."

Mr. Austin: That explanation makes me wonder whether it would be better to look up the files and bombard my right hon. Friend with applications for a second time. One point should not go unnoticed. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to an applicant who had not taken the school certificate and, apparently, this disqualified him from the outset. Does it follow from that, that all who have taken the school certificate, which is a necessary basis, are automatically included as successful applicants? This is an important point and if that is so, I would suggest to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that he should advise his student immediately to cram the school certificate as quickly as he can.
I wonder on what basis the Reading tribunal arrive at their findings. Do they arrive at their findings on a view of the correspondence, on the application made by the individual concerned, on the rejection and arguments adduced by the Ministry, or do they ask the applicant to make a further application in the form of an examination? I am wondering whether a tribunal whose findings are based only on previous written statements, are not being arbitrary in some way, and whether the composition and structure of the tribunal might not be strengthened if they included some preliminary form of examination by which they were able to decide whether the applicant has the necessary qualities for entry into a particular trade or profession.
I admit that there is a danger of abuse of this scheme if the Ministry leave it wide open to all who apply, purely on their application. No one is decrying the scheme. Those who have spoken have been unanimous in their praise of the scheme, but what they are all asking for is greater latitude and greater discretion in the entry into the scheme. Many

trades and professions in this country are not yet fully manned and they are desperately in need of recruits. If only on those grounds, I hope the Minister will look at this again and try to make further provision for a wider field of entry from applicants from all over the country.

Orders of the Day — BUILDING WORKERS, SCOTLAND (CALL-UP)

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) said that there is a wide field of opportunity in this country at present from which the Minister of Labour should organise entrants. The Reading Committee might very well be called on to consider the question of building trade labour in Scotland, and the Department should seriously consider referring to the Reading Committee the whole question of the organisation and direction of building labour in Scotland. I have no fault to find with the case that the Parliamentary Secretary has put up in reply to the lion. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I think he answered the questions directed to him and dealt with the individual cases to the satisfaction of the majority of hon. Members in the House. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that if his Department handled other questions in the same far-seeing way there would be far less criticism from Scottish Members as regards the activities of his Department.
I hope that he will ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to give a little more attention to the grievances which were brought up at Question Time on Tuesday about the calling up of workers from the building industry In that connection we in Scotland have a very serious grievance. We believe that the Minister of Labour is calling up people from the building industry into the Armed Forces at a time when they are——

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: On a point of Order. Has the calling up of men from the building industry into the Armed Forces anything whatever to do with the Question under discussion?

Hon. Members: We are on the Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think that it has.

Mr. Hughes: But I understand the rule is that on the Adjournment of this House Members may discuss wider questions. I should not have dreamt for a moment of raising this matter if the Minister had not been present. But the Minister is present. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) that on some occasions he may be very anxious to raise some question dealing with the Armed Forces. I am as interested in the building workers as the hon. and gallant Member is in the Armed Forces. I suggest that he should not try to draw the attention of Mr. Deputy-Speaker to the fact that I am trying to divert the discussion on to some subject, when he himself might be only too glad to use a similar opportunity on another occasion in order that the responsible Minister may have his attention directed to a grievance.
The Ministry of Labour has taken up what I consider to be a very reactionary attitude as regards the building industry in Scotland where 17,000 people are to be called up this year. Of that number there are a certain percentage of people who should be engaged in the building of the houses so badly needed in Scotland at the present time. I know that my right hon. Friend does not think I am bringing any indictment against him personally—but I ask him to convey to his right hon. Friend that in his refusal at Question time on Tuesday to promise that he would not call up building workers who are badly needed on the housing front, he is really doing a disservice to the people of Scotland which will ultimately have a serious effect on the production of houses, which will be revealed some time in the middle of this year.
Last Friday, for example, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that there were at least 600 joiners badly needed on housing schemes at the present time. The difficulty about building material is now solved. We now face the problem of the organisation of the necessary building labour. In Scotland 600 joiners and 400 plasterers are needed for work on the housing schemes now taking shape. The curious feature is that while we badly need these 1,000 workers, we have an unemployment

problem developing among bricklayers. It is safe to assert that by the middle of this year, if not before, we shall have the paradox of unemployment among bricklayers in Scotland at a time when there is a serious lag in our building programme. Yet despite this shortage the Ministry of Labour are indiscriminately calling up building workers for the Armed Forces. That is where we part company with the Minister. We say that under no circumstances is the Minister justified in calling up further workers from the building trade until there is greater progress on the housing front.
I pay tribute to the Ministry. When they get an individual case they consider it favourably and show common sense. I brought to the notice of the Minister the case of a village blacksmith who was called up for the Armed Forces from a little district where the National Farmers' Union had protested because he was needed for agricultural purposes. The Ministry considered the case carefully and decided that the man should not be called up as he was needed for agricultural purposes. If he went into the Forces the farmers would not be able to have their horses shod and their tractors mended. The Minister of Labour said that the blacksmith should be given deferment for six months and that if the circumstances were unchanged at the end of that time he would be prepared to consider a further deferment. Common sense was applied, and I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance.
But if the blacksmith is to be exempted for six months on the ground that his labour is needed for agriculture, surely it is reasonable to say that we need houses for agricultural purposes and that we should defer the call-up of plasterers, plumbers and other urgently needed workers. I ask the Minister to apply the same common sense and to say that if the blacksmith is to stay in his shop then the workers in the building industry are to stay to build houses which are so desperately needed. I warn the Government now—I have been doing so for months—that they will face complete chaos in the building industry if they allow the drift to continue. There is a serious housing situation in Scotland. Houses are urgently needed in all the big towns, the mining villages, the agricultural hamlets and the isolated fishing


villages. I make no apology for raising this matter on every possible occasion. We cannot get these houses unless we mobilise building labour. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should say to his right hon. Friend, "There is something in what these people from Scotland are perpetually harping upon."
We must have a much bigger army of building labour mobilised if we are to build the new towns and villages which are so urgently needed. We shall go home to our constituencies this week-end and shall be immediately faced with queues of people who are living, in some cases, four or five in a room. I have a case in my constituency where there are three miners and seven other people in a single apartment house, and other hon. Members can bring other illustrations of this type of case. There is a desperate housing situation in Scotland, and we say to the Minister of Labour that it is his job to organise the building labour of this country so that this problem is adequately faced. When other Ministers such as the Minister of Defence and the Foreign Secretary come along and tell the House that we have commitments in Malaya, Greece, Transjordan and in other parts of the world, we say to them that we have commitments in Scotland on the home front, that we need the houses, and that it is priority No. 1. We warn the Government that the problem is getting more acute, and we therefore ask the Minister of Labour to organise the building force, and not take men away from the job of building the houses so badly needed.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I make no apology for following my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in the very mild plea which he has put forward in calling attention to the organisation of the building industry in Scotland. It is only a fortnight or three weeks ago since, from the Front Bench, the Minister of Labour gave me a reply that there were 288 bricklayers unemployed in Scotland, and since those few weeks have passed I am sure that the number has gone up by 50 per cent.
At Kilmarnock at the week-end, I was approached by the organiser of the bricklayers, who drew my attention to the fact

that there are bricklayers unemployed in Scotland. At the same time, we were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland in this House on Tuesday, when we put down Questions regarding housing, that there is no shortage of materials, including bricks, but that there are shortages in certain of the finishing trades in the building industry, and that houses are being held up. I recently looked at a block of houses which has been standing unfinished for three years, owing to the shortage of joiners, plasterers and plumbers. At the same time, we find out that the Ministry of Labour started schemes for training people in these trades, but they have been closing down their training centres in Scotland, until at the present moment there is only one in operation and only 50 men in that centre. I doubt if there is a single plasterer or joiner now being trained.
Against that situation, we have the position of the continued call-up of trained men who could help to get these houses finished. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but it is perfectly true. If men are coming out of industry into the Army, they are not working on housing, and it simply means a further deterioration of the situation and the probability that the number of bricklayers unemployed will be even greater.
What is the present position? The position in Scotland is that, unless the Minister defers the men in these particular trades who are badly needed on housing in Scotland today, and also follows up that action by training men for these trades, we are going to have a reduction in house-building, and perhaps, added to that, we are going to lose the building labour that will be necessary to carry out the building programme in Scotland. I passed through Stoke Newington the other day and saw, on a site on which a week ago there was no evidence of building, that a hoarding had been put up with a demand for bricklayers: "116 flats going up; bricklayers wanted." What is going to happen if the Ministry of Labour do not wake up to what happened before the war? We shall have Scottish bricklayers finding work in England, and at the same time people in Scotland wanting houses to be built there.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to realise just how vital this matter is to Scotland and to Scotsmen. Our housing


conditions have always been worse than those in England. Only the other day we heard the Secretary of State for Scotland talking about the people, not in agricultural areas, but in the city areas of Scotland who are paying water rates and have no water in the houses. That is in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Our housing conditions are appalling and yet, at the same time, we see the depletion of the building industry, failure to get the houses completed, and the men who could complete them going into the Army.
I think there is a case for the deferment of the service of those specially required building operatives, and further that we should, with the help of the trade unions, rely upon a scheme of training. I have already told the bricklayers and the other building operatives concerned that it is up to their colleagues to help them. The failure to train and to defer these men means that more and more bricklayers are going to be unemployed. I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will bear this in mind, and will have a talk with the Secretary of State for Scotland and with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the subject.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: It would be very wrong of me not to intervene in a discussion of this kind because I represent what is probably one of the most overcrowded districts of Glasgow, and Glasgow is unquestionably the worst housed town in the country. At the moment, according to the official figures, Glasgow requires 100,000 houses. I question if, even in our best year, we shall ever be able to top 4,000 per annum, even with all the possible labour and material we can get. Interfering with the young building workers means that the young people today have little hope of getting a new house.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) gave evidence of overcrowding in some of the villages in his constituency. Let me say without exaggeration that I could take anyone to hundreds of houses in my constituency where there are 10, 12 and more people living in single apartment houses, and 14 living in two-apartment houses. It is very difficult for people in England to understand what we mean by "two-apartment" houses because our standard

of housing, I regret to say, has always been far below that of England. Not only have we the overcrowding, but also a number of houses in Glasgow, without light of any kind, other than the old paraffin lamp. If we decide to take more young men into the Armed Forces because of our commitments abroad, not only are we depleting the numbers employed, but we are taking the most active members of the building trade away.
As indicated by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), there are two problems here. First, serious representations must be made to the building operatives themselves. There has been a serious closing down of the work associated with trainees, and I make no apology for saying to the trade union movement that this is the most vital——

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

Mr. Carmichael: The building trade operatives must realise that this is the most important social service before the community, and that methods rightly operated during the scarcity of employment—restrictive practices—should not be allowed to continue at the present time. I know it will be hard for bricklayers who are unemployed at the moment to be asked to make concessions and to take a broader view of their responsibilities. Why are they unemployed? It has been indicated already—because there is already a shortage of other workers in the industry. I know of any number of houses in Glasgow that have been standing incomplete for months because the tradesmen required to finish them are unobtainable. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has a limited responsibility tonight for all this, but I hope he will not attempt to say that it is impossible to have a discussion of this serious matter.
Already the Minister has deferred the call-up of miners and agricultural workers because, we have been told, their jobs are respectively Priority No.1 and Priority No.2. We have also been told that houses for them are priority number one in housing. Yet we call up the very people who are to build those houses. I do not understand it.


Why do not the Government tell the miners and agricultural workers, "It is quite impossible to give you priority in housing because we have not the available labour to build the houses." Oh no; they do not do that.
Since I came to this House, I and other hon. Members have constantly been receiving complaints about all phases of our social services. There have been complaints from people about the National Health Service, about hospital treatment—complaints regarding all kinds of immediate problems; but the postbag has always carried more complaints about housing than about anything else. Some of us tried to tell our people that the responsibility for the supply of houses rested with the local authorities. Ordinary folk, however, who have suffered for years in overcrowded conditions, are of the opinion that every public representative should exercise his power and authority to ease this very serious problem. I do not know why it is that always all the social burdens rest most heavily on the people of Scotland. We have the largest army of unemployed, more than any other part of Britain. There are over 63,000 unemployed in Scotland.

Mr. W. Ross: And the number is rising.

Mr. Carmichael: And the number is rising. Moreover, the unemployment is amongst the people who have not the opportunities for alternative work in industry that we should like them to have. As the Minister recognises the problem, I say that he and the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Scotland should meet together to discuss the whole problem of employment in Scotland. No stronger argument could be made for that than was put by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. We have commitments in Malaya and in almost every corner of the world. To us there is something strange in the make-up of a Government that discovers that it has commitments in every corner of the world other than the spot in which we are living from day to day. I think this Adjournment discussion will impress upon the Government how urgent this housing problem is in Scotland and the necessity of making it possible for the people who live there to believe that, in their lifetime, we may manage, not to

solve the problem or remove its evils, but at least to give them evidence that we are making a serious attempt to tackle it in a serious way.

Mr. Speaker: I gather that there is no Minister here who can reply to this Debate and that no notice has been given to the Minister. It is within the rules that up to 10.30 p.m. anyone may talk, but it is contrary to the spirit of the House to raise matters to which no Minister can reply and of which no Minister has been given notice, and, therefore, I protest.

Mr. Carmichael: I admit, Mr. Speaker, that this Debate was very quickly arranged, but as you know we have raised this matter not suddenly but constantly. I admit the limited notice given to the Parliamentary Secretary that we would raise this matter. I agree that we could have had a better opportunity had the Minister been here, but we had ample time. I hope, Sir, you will appreciate the fact that we regard this matter very seriously and that even if we have stretched, we have not broken, the procedure on Adjournment. We have not done so to put anyone at a disadvantage, but rather to make known to the Department and to the Minister how seriously we feel this position.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Perhaps I ought to make some explanation and offer an apology to you, Mr. Speaker, for the way in which this matter was raised. It was raised on a Ministry of Labour answer to a Question that I put. As the Minister of Labour was represented here, I thought we were in Order in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to draw the attention of the Minister to this urgent question. Arising out of that, I can quite understand how, in the process of the Debate, the matter may have approached the wider question of housing in Scotland. We did our best to draw the attention of the Minister to that matter, and the Minister for that Department was here, and that was how it arose.

Mr. Speaker: I do not say that this is out of Order, but I do not think it is quite in accordance with our practice. That was all I wanted to say.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes past Ten o'Clock.